Smt. N. Appellant No. 1 And Anr. Versus Moodudula Srinivas [Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No. 7660 Of 2017

The instant case involved the court determining whether a formal decree of divorce was a sine qua non for claiming maintenance, given that the appellant had separated from her first husband through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) rather than a judicial decree. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.

The facts of the instant case involved a series of instances. Appellant No. 1, married Nomula Srinivas in 1999 and had a son. The couple separated in 2005 and executed an MoU dissolving their marital relationship. However, no formal decree of divorce was obtained. In 2005, Appellant No. 1 married Respondent. He later filed for annulment under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (HMA), which was granted on 01.02.2006. Subsequently, in 2006, the couple remarried and had a daughter. Due to matrimonial discord, Appellant No. 1 sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court awarded maintenance, but the High Court set it aside, holding that she could not be considered a “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as her first marriage was still legally subsisting.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the High Court’s ruling, restored the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court involved the interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It placed reliance on Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141, which emphasized that the term “wife” should be given a broad and purposive interpretation to include women in void or voidable marriages. The Court distinguished Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636, where maintenance was denied to a second wife due to the subsistence of the first marriage. It noted that in Savitaben, the second wife was unaware of the first marriage, whereas in the present case, the Respondent was fully aware of the Appellant’s marital history. Regarding the legal status of the first marriage & its effect on maintenance, the Court noted that Appellant No. 1 and her first husband had de facto separated and were not deriving any legal benefits from the marriage. The existence of an MoU signified mutual separation, even though it lacked the authority of a judicial decree. The Court held that a strict requirement of a formal divorce decree would frustrate the remedial purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which aims to protect financially dependent spouses. Regarding the respondent’s conduct & Doctrine of Estoppel, the Court emphasized that the Respondent had married the Appellant twice and was aware of her first marriage. It applied the principle of estoppel, holding that the Respondent could not now claim that the marriage was void ab initio to avoid his duty of maintenance. This reasoning aligns with the ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188, where the Court barred a husband from escaping maintenance liability by claiming that his marriage was void. The Court further referenced Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686), which recognized the financial vulnerability of homemakers. It underscored that maintenance is a legal and moral duty, not a mere statutory benefit.  Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even if her first marriage was not formally dissolved, provided that the parties were de facto separated, the second husband was aware of the first marriage and the woman was financially dependent and vulnerable.

This judgment expands the protective scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and discourages men from exploiting technical legal loopholes to evade maintenance obligations. It strengthens women’s financial rights in informal marriages or voidable unions. It reinforces equitable principles in maintenance claims. Finally, it signals a progressive approach to maintenance laws, emphasizing substance over form in marital relationships.