In a significant judgment, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The Court held that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a social justice provision meant to protect women from destitution and should be interpreted in a broad, purposive manner. The ruling restores maintenance granted by the Family Court but overturned by the High Court on the grounds that the marriage was legally void.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a woman who was married and had separated from her first husband through a mutual agreement, although she had not obtained a formal legal divorce. She later entered a second marriage, which was later annulled on the ground that her first marriage was still legally subsisting. The couple lived together for years and had a daughter before disputes arose, leading the woman to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
A Family Court granted her maintenance, recognizing the reality of her marital relationship and dependence on her husband. However, the High Court ruled against her, stating that since her first marriage was still legally valid, her second marriage was void and she could not be considered a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC. She then challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Considered
The Supreme Court examined the following critical legal questions:
– Can a woman whose first marriage is not legally dissolved claim maintenance from a second husband?
– Should the term “wife” under Section 125 CrPC be interpreted strictly in legal terms or in light of the provision’s social justice objective?
– Can a husband evade his obligation to provide maintenance by claiming that the marriage was void due to legal technicalities?
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court restored the maintenance granted by the Family Court, emphasizing that denying financial support to a woman who has lived as a wife would defeat the purpose of Section 125 CrPC. The Court observed:
“This provision is a measure of social justice, specially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.”
The Court further noted that even if a woman’s marriage is later found to be void, she should not be denied maintenance if she had entered the relationship in good faith and lived as a wife. It rejected a rigid interpretation of marital validity, stating:
“A husband cannot escape the duties of marriage while enjoying its privileges. The law cannot allow a man to take advantage of legal loopholes to avoid his obligations.”
The Court also referred to previous judgments, including Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011), which called for an expansive interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC to include women in de facto marriages and live-in relationships. It reaffirmed that maintenance laws must be interpreted to prevent women from facing destitution, rather than focusing on technicalities of marriage validity.
Another crucial observation by the Court was:
“When a man knowingly enters into a marriage and enjoys its benefits, he cannot later claim that the marriage is void simply to evade his financial responsibilities.”
