New Delhi: The Supreme Court allowed an appeal from a woman seeking maintenance from her second husband without legally dissolving her marriage from her first husband, saying social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance and the right to maintenance is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while allowing the appeal of the woman, noted that barring the absence of a legal decree, the woman is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.
Apex court was hearing an appeal filed by woman
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which upheld the award of maintenance to the daughter but set aside the award of maintenance to her, holding that she could not be considered the legal wife of the respondent second husband as her first marriage was not dissolved through a legal decree.
“It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband,” the bench said while noting that while there was no legal decree of divorce, it also emerged that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and the woman is not deriving maintenance from her first husband.
MoU was executed between woman, her first husband to dissolve their marriage
The woman got married with her first husband and they had a son out of the wedlock. They began living separately after their return from the United States of America in February 2005 and eventually on November 25, 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between them dissolving their marriage. Meanwhile, the woman got acquainted with her neighbour (respondent) and they got married on November 27, 2005.
Wife remarried the respondent second husband
The wife remarried the respondent on February 14, 2006 and this marriage was registered and the couple was blessed with a daughter. However, differences arose and the woman registered a case against the respondent and his family members. The woman later moved the family court for maintenance for her and daughter and the family court ordered the respondent to pay a maintenance of Rs 3,500 per month and Rs 5,000 per month to the daughter. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order before the High Court, which upheld the award of maintenance to the daughter but set aside the award of maintenance to her.
What did the parties argue?
The counsel representing the woman vehemently argued that as she and the respondent were de facto living as a married couple and raising a child together, the benefit of maintenance should be extended to her, the counsel representing the respondent second husband opposed the grant of maintenance on grounds that she cannot be considered a “wife” under section 125 CrPC.
Family court makes a specific finding that respondent was fully aware of first marriage, apex court noted
The apex court said that the present case does not concern a live-in relationship and the family court made a factual finding that the woman married the second husband and that finding is not disputed by the respondent second husband.
“Instead, the respondent (second husband) seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to appellant No. 1 (woman) is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the family court makes a specific finding that respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the appellant No. 1,” the apex court said.
Barring the absence of a legal decree, woman is de facto separated from her first husband, apex court noted
“Therefore, respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, appellant No. 1 places before this court an MoU of separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage,” the apex court added.
Social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction: Apex Court
The bench further said it is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance. 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, it added.
“In the opinion of this Court, when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to appellant No. 1,” the bench said while referring to an apex court verdict emphasizing the financial vulnerability of homemakers in India and need to empower them.
