Free Download

Supreme Court Grants Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite Subsisting First Marriage
04-04-2025 13:54:34 | APS Judicial Academy


SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS 2025 Supreme Court

Brief Facts: What Happened?
  • 1999: N. Usha Rani tied the knot with Nomula Srinivas, had a son in 2000, but they parted ways in 2005, with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—a mutual split, but no legal divorce.
  • 2005-2006: She married the Respondent (her neighbour!) in 2005— but this marriage was declared null and void in 2006. They remarried in 2006, had a daughter (Appellant No. 2) in 2008, and later separated due to disputes.
  • Legal Action: Usha Rani filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her daughter. The Family Court awarded Rs. 3,500/month to her and Rs. 5,000/month to the daughter in 2012.
  • High Court’s Ruling (2017): The High Court upheld maintenance for the daughter but denied it to Usha Rani in 2017, ruling her first marriage with Srinivas was still legally subsisting, making her not a "wife" to the Respondent (second husband).
  • Appeal: Usha Rani appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing she lived as a wife with the Respondent and deserved maintenance.
The Key Issue!
Can a woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting?
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring maintenance of Rs. 3,500/month to Usha Rani (and Rs. 5,000/month to her daughter) as originally granted by the Family Court in 2012.
What the Court Said?
1.     Purpose of Section 125 CrPC:
  • This law is a "social justice" measure to prevent destitution and vagrancy for women and children, rooted in Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Indian Constitution. It must be interpreted broadly to protect vulnerable women, not to deny them rights based on technicalities.
2.     Definition of ‘Wife’: 
  • The Court rejected a strict legal definition of "wife" that excludes a second wife if her first marriage isn’t legally dissolved. Instead, it emphasized a purposive approach: 
  1. Usha Rani and the Respondent lived as a married couple, had a child, and he knowingly married her twice despite her first marriage.
  1. An MoU showed she was de facto separated from her first husband, with no maintenance from him, even though there was no formal divorce decree.
  • Past cases like Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) SC and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2005) SC denied maintenance to second wives with subsisting first marriages, but this case is different because of the separation and the Respondent’s awareness.
3. Key Reasoning:
  • The Court distinguished this case from live-in relationship cases (Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another (2011) SC), as Usha Rani’s marriage was formalized, not just a de facto union. 
  • Further, no risk of "dual maintenance" existed, as Usha Rani wasn’t claiming from her first husband. 
  • Denying maintenance would let the Respondent exploit legal loopholes—enjoying marriage benefits without responsibilities—contradicting Section 125’s goal. 
  • Both ‘financial security’ as well as ‘security of residence’ of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced.
Precedents: Supreme Court relied on 
  • Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal and Others (1978) SC to reiterate the objective of maintenance under section 125 CrPC for social justice.
  • Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K) (1991) SC and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another (1999) SC where it was noted that the standard of proof of marriage while claiming maintenance is not as strict as is required in a trial for offence under section 494 IPC.
  • Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014) SC where maintenance was granted to a second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband’s first subsisting marriage. 
  • Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another (2024) SC to highlight the financial vulnerability of Indian homemakers, reinforcing the husband’s duty to support.
Final Takeaway
The Supreme Court ruled that Usha Rani, despite her first marriage not being legally dissolved, could claim maintenance from her second husband because they lived as a married couple, he knew about her previous marriage, and she was effectively separated from her first husband. This expands the scope of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC to prevent injustice.
Video Link: "Watch our video breakdown here". https://youtube.com/live/z9eglQm7VB0

  • Download: