1. Maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC by a woman in a second marriage while the first marriage remained legally subsisting despite a memorandum of separation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 271
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Smt. N. Usha Rani And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Moodudula Srinivas – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No (S). 515 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7660 of 2017]
Decided on : 30-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Ms. Santosh, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ningthem Oinam, Adv. Mrs. Amrita Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Ms. Santosh, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ningthem Oinam, Adv. Mrs. Amrita Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Maintenance – A woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband while her first marriage is legally subsisting but she is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of first marriage.
(2) Social welfare provisions must be subjected to expansive and beneficial construction.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 144] – Maintenance – Entitlement – Void marriage – It is not the case of Respondent that truth was concealed from him – Family Court made a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of first marriage of Appellant No. 1 – Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice – Barring absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage – When social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered against particular facts and circumstances of this case, Court cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant No.1 – Social welfare provisions must be subjected to expansive and beneficial construction – An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution but would also give legal sanction to actions of Respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations – Maintenance award granted by Family Court restored. (Paras 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is arising out of order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1587 of 2012 by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. Short question before Court is whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.
Findings of Court:
Parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the term wife under Section 125 CrPC includes a woman in a de facto second marriage where the first marriage is not legally dissolved. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure requiring purposive interpretation to prevent vagrancy, especially when the husband knowingly entered the second marriage. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be granted to a second wife if the first marriage is de facto dissolved and the husband knowingly married her. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed and the award of maintenance to the wife restored. (Para 19 )
6. Should the term wife under Section 125 CrPC be interpreted strictly or expansively?
The term should be interpreted broadly and expansively to include women in de facto marriages or live-in relationships to fulfill the provision's social justice objective of preventing vagrancy and destitution. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
7. Can a woman claim maintenance from a second husband if her first marriage is legally subsisting?
Yes, if the first marriage is de facto dissolved, the woman is not receiving maintenance from the first husband, and the second husband knowingly entered the marriage. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Is the standard of proof for marriage under Section 125 CrPC as strict as in criminal trials for bigamy?
No, the standard of proof of marriage for claiming maintenance is not as strict as that required in a trial for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. (Para 13 )
9. What is the legal and moral duty of a husband toward a wife who is a homemaker?
A husband must financially empower and provide for a wife who lacks an independent source of income, ensuring she has access to financial resources for her personal needs. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1587 of 2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The facts of the case reveal that Appellant No.1 before this Court – Smt. N. Usha Rani married one Nomula Srinivas on 30.08.1999 at Hyderabad. During the period of their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child, namely, Sai Ganesh on 15.08.2000. The couple lived together until disputes arose between them. Following their return from the United States of America in February 2005, they began living separately. Eventually, on 25.11.2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) was executed between the couple, dissolving their marriage. Meanwhile, Appellant No. 1 got acquainted with her neighbour, the Respondent, and the couple got married on 27.11.2005.
4. The Respondent then preferred a petition u/s.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (‘HMA’) r/w. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking dissolution of marriage dated 27.11.2005. The prayer was allowed by the Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P. No. 29 of 2006 vide decree dated 01.02.2006 and the marriage between Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent was declared null and void.
5. On 14.02.2006, the Appellant No. 1 remarried the Respondent. This second marriage was registered and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad on 11.09.2006. The couple was blessed with a daughter, Venkata Harshini i.e., Appellant No. 2 on 28.01.2008. However, differences arose between the couple and the Appellant No. 1 preferred a complaint against the Respondent and his family members for offences u/s. 498A, 406, 506, 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6. The Appellants then preferred an application for maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC before the Family Court. Vide order dated 26.07.2012, the Court awarded Rs. 3,500/- pm to the Appellant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- pm to the Appellant No.2. Aggrieved, Respondent preferred a criminal revision petition against the award of maintenance. Vide the impugned order, the High Court upheld the award of maintenance to the daughter i.e., Appellant No. 2 but set aside the award of maintenance to the Appellant No.1. The Court held that the Appellant No. 1 could not be considered the legal wife of the Respondent as her first marriage with Nomula Srinivas was not dissolved through a legal decree.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued before this Court that as the Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent were de facto living as a married couple and raising a child together, the benefit of maintenance should be extended to Appellant No.1. Reliance is placed on judgement passed in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33 whereby a Division Bench of this Court upheld the grant of maintenance to a wife u/s. 25 of the HMA from her second husband while her first marriage was still subsisting. The Court considered that although there was no legal decree of divorce from the first husband, (i) the wife had given customary divorce i.e., chhor chitthhi and (ii) the factum of the first marriage was not concealed from the second husband.
8. Further reliance is placed on judgement passed in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another (2011) 1 SCC 141 whereby a Division Bench of this Court noted that considering the social object of Sec. 125 CrPC, the term “wife” should be expansively interpreted to include livein partners. While the question of law was referred to a larger bench, the Court took the view that men should not be permitted to benefit from legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking its duties and obligations.
9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the grant of maintenance on grounds that the Appellant
