Supreme Court Rules Woman Entitled to Maintenance from Second Husband Despite Valid First Marriage

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is entitled to maintenance from her second husband, even if her first marriage is still legally valid. The court highlighted that maintenance is not just a right but a responsibility of the husband.

The case involved a woman challenging a High Court ruling from 2017, which had overturned her monthly maintenance award of Rs 5,000. The High Court had said she could not be considered the legal wife of her second husband because her first marriage hadn’t been legally ended. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that denying maintenance would go against the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which aims for social justice.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the family court had confirmed the woman’s marriage to the second husband, and he had not contested this. The second husband argued that their marriage was invalid due to the first marriage still being in place. However, the Supreme Court noted that the second husband knew about the woman’s first marriage when he married her. The woman also presented an MoU showing that she had separated from her first husband and was not receiving maintenance from him.

The court ruled that denying her maintenance would lead to injustice, supporting her right to financial support from her second husband.

Background of the Case:

The woman’s first marriage took place in 1999, and they had a son in 2000. After facing issues, they created an MoU in 2005, signaling an informal end to their marriage. The woman married her second husband in November 2005, but they faced difficulties and had their marriage annulled in 2006. They remarried in February 2006, and the marriage was officially registered later that year. They had a daughter in 2008, but the relationship faced more problems, leading the woman to file complaints under various laws.

In 2012, the family court awarded maintenance to both the woman and her daughter. However, the High Court later upheld the maintenance for the daughter but canceled the woman’s maintenance.

Legal Precedents:

The Supreme Court referred to past cases where maintenance was granted to a second wife, including cases where the second wife was unaware of the first marriage. The court emphasized that laws meant to protect women and prevent poverty should be interpreted broadly.

This ruling sets an important precedent, ensuring that women in complex marital situations are protected and supported.