Summary
The Supreme Court held that a woman whom the respondent married knowing of her earlier marriage, and who was de facto separated from her first husband under an MoU without a legal decree of divorce, could claim maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 CrPC; given the provision's social justice purpose, the absence of a formal divorce from the first marriage could not defeat her claim on these facts.
Issues
- Whether a woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage allegedly subsists in law because it was dissolved only by a memorandum of understanding and not by a decree of divorce.
Provisions considered
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Treated as a social justice measure to prevent vagrancy and destitution calling for an expansive, beneficial construction of 'wife'; the Court held the appellant-wife could not be denied maintenance because her first marriage had not been dissolved by a decree, where the respondent knew of it and she was de facto separated. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice for women and children that must receive an expansive and beneficial construction, as laid down from Ramesh Chander Kaushal onwards; maintenance is not a benefit to the wife but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband. (¶¶ 11, 12, 16, 18)
- Where the respondent did not dispute that he married the appellant, knew of her earlier marriage and married her twice, and she had separated from her first husband by an MoU, lived apart from him and drew no maintenance from him, she was de facto separated and could not, in good conscience, be denied maintenance merely because there was no legal decree of divorce. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Denying maintenance would permit destitution and allow the respondent to enjoy the privileges of a marriage he knowingly entered while escaping its obligations; the only possible mischief, a double claim to maintenance, did not arise on these facts. (¶ 18)
- Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav and Bakulabai, which denied maintenance during a subsisting marriage, were distinguished because no plea of separation from the earlier marriage was made in those cases. (¶¶ 14, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order to the extent it set aside maintenance to appellant No. 1 reversed, and the Family Court's order of 26.07.2012 awarding maintenance restored.