Back
Affirms Maintenance for Woman in Second Marriage, No Divorce Needed if Husband Knew
In a ruling that underscores the social welfare intent of maintenance laws, the dismissed a husband's revision petition against a family court order granting his wife ₹3,000 monthly maintenance under . Justice Saurabh Banerjee upheld the decision, stressing that the term "wife" deserves a liberal interpretation to shield dependent women from destitution. The case, Sh. Raj Kumar vs. Smt. Poonam Sharma (CRL.REV.P. 485/2018), was pronounced on .
A Marriage Marred by Alleged Cruelty and Hidden Histories
The couple married on , in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, per Hindu rites, before cohabiting in New Delhi. Tensions escalated quickly: the wife alleged daily misbehavior and assaults in late 2009 and early 2010, forcing her to return to her mother's home. Orphaned after her father's death and fully dependent on family, she filed for maintenance in 2012 before the .
The family court, on , awarded her ₹3,000 per month until remarriage or death, plus ₹11,000 in litigation costs. The husband challenged this in revision, filing over 60 days late—though the court overlooked the delay to address merits.
Husband's Fury: "She's Not My Legal Wife!"
The petitioner's counsel hammered on the wife's undisclosed prior marriage, arguing she wasn't a valid "wife" under without divorce from her first husband. They cited her past filings where she claimed to be that man's wife, accused her of , and denied cruelty allegations—flipping the script to portray her as "intolerable" and infertile. Additional gripes included the family court's alleged lack of jurisdiction (marriage in UP), unfounded claims of his land ownership, and arbitrary maintenance quantum amid his unemployment.
Wife's Defense: Awareness, Absence, and Social Justice
Responding sharply, the wife's team dismissed the delay as fatal but urged merits review. They highlighted the husband's failure to present evidence despite service, the public nature of their wedding (attended by 100-200 villagers aware of her past), and her first husband's 12-year disappearance after one month of marriage—raising a . Citing Supreme Court precedents like , , and , they advocated a broad "wife" definition to fulfill Section 125's anti-vagrancy goal.
The amicus curiae reinforced this, invoking N. Usha Rani (2025 SCC OnLine SC 225) for maintenance in and urging restraint in revisions per .
Weaving Precedents into Protection: Court's Sharp Reasoning
Justice Banerjee meticulously reviewed the family court's "well-reasoned" order, noting it had already tackled jurisdiction and the wife's status after her evidence and the husband's silence. No fresh evidence warranted re-adjudication.
Drawing from Supreme Court lore—
,
, and recent
N. Usha Rani
—the court affirmed Section 125 as
"a
"
against
. If the second husband knew of the prior union (unproven otherwise), and cohabitation occurred, she qualifies as "wife." Echoing reports from legal outlets, the bench stressed: no
justified interference in this limited revision scope (
).
Key Observations
" is a especially enacted with the objective to protect women from vagrancy and/ or destitution and hence, as victims of the social environment, their rights cannot be defeated by of ."(Para 11)
"The term ‘wife’ under does not warrant , being a beneficial measure to secure the rights of a dependant woman and for her financial and social protection."(Para 11, referencing N. Usha Rani)
"The petitioner... chose to never lead any evidence before the learned Family Court."(Para 9)
"When there is no dispute that the petitioner never led any evidence qua the same before the learned Family Court, there is no need for a fresh adjudication thereof by this Court."(Para 10)
No Reversal: Maintenance Stands, Precedent for the Vulnerable
The petition and applications were dismissed outright. Practically, Raj Kumar must clear arrears and continue payments, barring remarriage. This bolsters women's claims in irregular second marriages, prioritizing awareness and need over paperwork—potentially easing paths for deserted spouses nationwide, as long as evidence supports knowledge of prior ties.
