NEW DELHI, 8 FEB

The Supreme Court has held that a woman would be entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from her second husband even if her previous marriage was legally subsisting.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said the objective of social welfare provisions such as maintenance must be given an expansive interpretation and a strict legal interpretation should not be allowed to defeat its humanitarian purpose.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, with effect from 1 July, 2024.

Directing the second husband to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, the top court said, "In the opinion of this court, when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to appellant No 1. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction."

"An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution, but would also give legal sanction to the actions of the respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with appellant No 1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations," the bench said in an order dated 30 January.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by a woman who separated from her first husband in 2005 after signing a memorandum of understanding, though no formal legal decree of divorce was obtained.

Later, she got acquainted with her neighbour and the couple got married on 27 November, 2005. Following differences, the second husband sought annulment of their marriage, which was granted by a family court in February 2006. Later, the couple reconciled and remarried, which was registered in Hyderabad.

The couple's daughter was born in January 2008.

However, differences arose between the couple again and the woman filed a complaint against the second husband and his family members under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Subsequently, the woman sought maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC for herself and her daughter, which was allowed by the family court but Telangana High Court set aside the order after the second husband challenged it.

In his appeal, the second husband submitted that the woman could not be considered his legal wife due to her first marriage still legally subsisting.

Rejecting the second husband's argument, the top court set aside the high court order and restored the maintenance award.