SC spells out terms for seekingmaintenance in second marriage

 

THE Supreme Court has held that a woman would be entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of theCrPC 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 givenanexpansiveinterpretation 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 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, with effect from July 1, 2024. Directing the second husband to pay maintenance to his estrangedwife, the topcourtsaid, “

 

In the opinion of this court, when the socialjustice objective of maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of thiscase,wecannot,ingoodconscience, deny maintenance to appellant No 1. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansiveandbeneficialconstruction.” “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 January 30. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by a woman whoseparated fromher firsthusbandin2005aftersigningamemorandum of understanding, though no formallegal decree of divorce was obtained. Later, she got acquainted withher neighbour and the couplegot married on November 27, 2005. Following differences, thesecond husband sought annulmentof theirmarriage,whichwasgranted by a family court inFebruary 2006. Later, the couplereconciled andremarried,whichwas registered in Hyderabad. The couple’s daughter wasborn in January 2008. However, differences arosebetween thecoupleagainand thewoman filedacomplaint againstthesecondhusbandandhis family members under the DowryProhibition Act. Subsequently, the womansought maintenance underSection 125 of the CrPC for herself andherdaughter,whichwasallowed by the family court but Telangana High Court set asidethe order after the second husband challenged it.