In a significant judgment reinforcing the humanitarian objective of maintenance laws, the Supreme Court has directed a man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, even though her previous marriage was legally subsisting. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscores that strict legal interpretations should not defeat the social welfare purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which aims to prevent women from destitution.
“When the social justice objective of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to the appellant (woman),” the bench stated in its judgment, released earlier this week.
The ruling has significant implications, particularly under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the CrPC effective July 1, 2024, but retained the provision on alimony under Section 144.
Case Background and Legal Dispute
The case involves a woman who separated from her first husband in 2005 after signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU), though they did not obtain a formal divorce decree. She later entered into a marital relationship with another man, but their marriage was annulled by a family court in February 2006. However, the couple reconciled, remarried, and registered their marriage in Hyderabad, eventually having a daughter.
Following subsequent disputes, the woman left the matrimonial home and sought maintenance for herself and her daughter under Section 125 of CrPC. While a family court initially granted them maintenance, the High Court overturned this decision in 2017, ruling that she could not be considered the man’s legal wife as her first marriage was still legally valid.
The Supreme Court, in its January 30 judgment, overturned the High Court’s ruling, stressing that maintenance laws should be interpreted in a way that upholds their intended social justice purpose. The court rejected the husband’s argument that the woman was not his “legal wife,” noting that he had knowingly entered into marriage with her twice.
Key Legal Precedents and Observations
The Supreme Court referenced the landmark 1978 case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal, where Justice Krishna Iyer highlighted that maintenance laws align with constitutional provisions under Article 15(3) and Article 39, which protect women and children from financial distress.
Additionally, the court cited a recent 2024 decision in Mohd Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another, authored by Justice Nagarathna, which underscored the financial vulnerability of married women in India. The ruling noted that homemakers often lack financial independence and remain reliant on their spouses for economic security.
Court’s Verdict and Social Implications
Ordering the man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and their daughter, the Supreme Court warned that denying financial support in such cases would not only lead to destitution but also allow men to exploit marital privileges without fulfilling their responsibilities.
“Financial security as well as security of residence of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced,” the court stated, emphasizing the need for a broader interpretation of maintenance laws to safeguard the dignity and well-being of women.
The verdict is expected to have a far-reaching impact on similar cases, reinforcing the principle that legal loopholes should not be used to deny women their rightful financial support.
Sources By Agencies