Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
N. Usha Rani – Appellant
Versus
Moodudula Srinivas – Respondent
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
None of the provided case excerpts explicitly state that a case has been overruled, reversed, or abrogated. All listed cases appear to be current judicial references.
**Madhu Yadav vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2882, Trapti Swami vs Vijay Swami - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 495, (Usha Rani and Anr. vs. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 INSC 129):** These excerpts identify this case as the primary authority currently being used to interpret Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The snippets focus on the court's reliance on *Usha Rani* to determine the definition of "wife" and maintenance entitlements. Specifically, Manjunatha, S/o. Late G. Basavaraj vs Manjula Yane Mamatha, W/o. Manjunath - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2249 notes it as a reported judgment in [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1442, indicating it is an active, authoritative precedent. **(Legislative Intent/Definition):** This is categorized as a statement of legal principle applied in the context of interpreting Section 125 Cr.P.C. The language indicates a firm standing rule: "The legislative intent being clearly reflected... there is no scope for enlarging the scope." It serves as a directive for judicial application. **(Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act):** This excerpt describes an established legal principle regarding the status of null and void marriages, indicating how the law is currently applied regarding maintenance for an unsuccessful party. **(Statutory Interplay):** This lists settled principles of law regarding the parallel application of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The language suggests these are established, actionable rules for maintenance entitlements. **(Magistrate Procedure):** This outlines the procedural standard for maintenance proceedings, specifically that "strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required" in summary proceedings. It functions as a standing directive for evidentiary standards in lower courts.
None. The provided excerpts consistently reflect active legal standards or citations for the current *Usha Rani* case law. There is no evidence of conflict or ambiguous treatment in the provided text.
(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 ....
The Court clarified that a second wife whose marriage is void due to the survival of the first marriage is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the need for stri....
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
A broad interpretation of 'wife' under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is necessary, allowing claims based on cohabitation without formal marriage to ensure social justice and prevent destitution.
Once such presumption of a lawful marriage commenced to operate in favour of a marriage which has taken place in fact, such a presumption alone would be good enough to entitle the wife to maintain.
Maintenance can be granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on a marriage-like relationship, without strict proof of marriage; primary focus is on neglect and economic capabilities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
