Maintenance Can Be Claimed From Second Husband, Even If First Marriage Not Dissolved:- Apex Court

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in a recent judgement in the case of Smt. N Usha Rani and Anr v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025), held that a woman would be entitled for maintenance from her second husband, even if her previous marriage with first husband has not been dissolved. 

Facts of the case-

• Appellant No. 1 (N. Usha Rani), married her first husband Nomula Srinivas on 30th August 1999, in Hyderabad, and on 15th Aug 2000, they had their son named Sai Ganesh. 
• After they returned from the United States in February 2005, the couple started living separately, and dated 25th November 2005, they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to have their marriage dissolved. 
• Appellant No. 1 later married her second husband, her neighbour, Respondent on 27th November 2005, however the marriage was declared as null and void by the Family Court, Hyderabad dated 1st February 2006, after which a petition was filed by the Respondent. 
•  Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent remarried on 14th February 2006, the  marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage in Hyderabad dated 11th September 2006. 
•  From the marriage the couple had a daughter, Venkata Harshini (Appellant No. 2), born on 28th January 2008, however differences arose between the couple later on. 
•  Appellant No. 1 later filed a complaint against the Respondent and his family members under numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
• Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), an amount of Rs. 3500 and Rs. 5000 per month were were awarded by the Family Court to Appellant No.1 and Appellant No.2 (the daughter) respectively. 
• While deciding the criminal revision petition by the Respondent, the High Court  upheld the decision of maintenance for the daughter, however maintenance award for Appellant no.1 was set aside on the basis that the first marriage was not dissolved via legal decree, hence the appellant could not be considered as legal wife of the respondent. 
• The matter was, thus, before the Supreme Court.

What were the Observations by the Court ?  

• It was observed by the Court that the Respondent sought to defeat the right to maintenance based on the fact that the marriage of the couple was void ab initio as the first marriage of the Appellant no.1 had still not been dissolved. 
• There were two important facts which were noticed by the Court-

1. That the first marriage was not concealed from the respondent. 
2. The MOU of separation which was presented before the Court, though is not a legal decree of divorce but it does imply the fact that the parties dissolved their ties and were living separately. 
3. Hence, the appellant got separated from her first husband and no rights or entitlements could be derived her first marriage. 

• The Apex Court observed that provisions catering to social welfare must be provided with an expansive and beneficial construction. 
• The only apparent mischief which may arise in the present case is if the Appellant no 1 claim dual maintenance, which does not seem be the case in the present facts. 
• It was further held by the Apex Court that maintenance under Section 125 of the  CrPC is not some benefit which is received by a woman but legal and moral duty which is owed by her husband.  
• Hence, the Court permitted the appeal, granting maintenance to the wife in the present case.

Other landmark cases where Maintenance was granted during the Subsistence of Another Marriage

• Dwarka Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prave Dixit and Another (1999)-

1. Maintenance was granted by the Court even when the proof of marriage was not conclusive. 
2. It was observed by the Court, that provisions of Section 125 CrPC should not be used for defeating the rights conferred by the legislature for destitute women, children or parents. 

• Yamunabai Anantrao v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. (1988)

1. The Court denied maintenance to second wife, as the first marriage of the husband was not dissolved, following the strict interpretation of the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 of CrPC. 
2. The Court gave preference to the intention of the legislature where divorced wife was also included within the purview of Section 125 of CrPC, however, there was no mention of such wives where the marriage was void ab initio. 

For further information on the subject, it is advised that you contact us at Sharks of Law. Our team of lawyers who boast of their years long experience in successfully dealing with cases related to civil law, criminal law as well as family law, could offer you appropriate legal counsel as per the facts of your case. 

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993