Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that a woman is entitled to maintenance from her second husband even if her marriage with the first husband is not dissolved.     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Smt. N Usha Rani and Anr v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. N Usha Rani and Anr v. Moodudula Srinivas Case?

• Appellant No. 1 (N. Usha Rani) first married Nomula Srinivas on 30th August 1999, in Hyderabad, and they had a son named Sai Ganesh on 15th August 2000. 
• After returning from the United States in February 2005, the couple began living separately, and on 25th November 2005, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to dissolve their marriage. 
• Appellant No. 1 then married the Respondent (her neighbor) on 27th November 2005, but this marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court, Hyderabad on 1st February 2006, following a petition filed by the Respondent. 
•  The Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent married again on 14th February 2006, and this marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage in Hyderabad on 11th September 2006. 
•  The couple had a daughter, Venkata Harshini (Appellant No. 2), on 28th January 2008, but differences arose between them later. 
•  Appellant No. 1 filed a complaint against the Respondent and his family members under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
•  The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month to Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000 per month to Appellant No. 2 (the daughter) under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The High Court, in response to the Respondent's criminal revision petition, upheld the maintenance for the daughter but set aside the maintenance for Appellant No. 1, ruling that she could not be considered the Respondent's legal wife as her first marriage was not dissolved through a legal decree. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that in the present facts the respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance of the Appellant no 1 (wife) on the ground that her marriage with the Respondent was void ab initio owing to the first marriage of the Appellant no 1 that still subsists. 
• The Court observed two very important facts in this case: 
  • It is not the case where the truth was concealed from the respondent. 
  • The MOU of separation was placed before the Court, which is not a legal decree of divorce, but this document and other evidence point to the fact that the parties have dissolved their ties and are living separately.  
  • Therefore, the appellant is de facto separated from her first husband and does not derive any rights and entitlements from the first marriage.   
• It was observed by the Court in this case that the provisions that cater to social welfare must be given an expansive and beneficial construction. 
• Any alternative construction would defeat the purpose of the provision which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 
• The only conceivable mischief that could arise in this case is that the Appellant no 1 could claim dual maintenance, which is not the case in the present facts. 
• Further, it was held by the Court that the maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by the woman but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.  
• Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and granted maintenance to the wife in the facts of the present case.

What is Maintenance under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Grant of maintenance is provided under Section 125 of CrPC and Section 144 of BNSS.  
• The Supreme Court through Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Others (1978) laid down the objective of Section 125 of CrPC now Section 144 of BNSS. 
• The Court held that this provision is a measure of social justice and enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. 
• Section 144 (1) of BNSS provides for grant of maintenance: 
  • A First-Class Magistrate can order maintenance payments if a person with adequate means refuses to maintain certain family members. 
  • The people who can claim maintenance are:  
    • A wife who cannot support herself. 
    • Any legitimate or illegitimate child (married or unmarried) cannot support themselves. 
    • Any adult legitimate or illegitimate child who is unmarried and unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disability. 
    • Parents who cannot support themselves. 
  • The Magistrate can decide the monthly maintenance amount and direct who should receive the payments. 
  • Special provisions for female children:  
    • If a married daughter's husband cannot support her, the Magistrate can order her father to pay maintenance until she becomes an adult. 
  • Interim maintenance:  
    • During the ongoing maintenance case, the Magistrate can order temporary monthly payments. 
    • This includes both maintenance and legal expenses. 
    • The application for interim maintenance should be decided within 60 days of serving notice. 
  • Important note about "wife":  
    • The term "wife" includes divorced women who haven't remarried. 
    • This means divorced women can still claim maintenance from their ex-husbands if they haven't remarried. 
  • The Magistrate has the power to:  
    • Determine if the person has sufficient means. 
    • Set the monthly maintenance amount. 
    • Decide who should receive the payments. 
    • Order interim maintenance during proceedings.

What are the Landmark Cases on Grant of Maintenance during Subsistence of Another Marriage? 

• Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another (1999): 
  • The Court granted maintenance where the proof of marriage was inconclusive. 
  • The Court observed that the provision under Section 125 of CrPC is not be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the legislature on the destitute women, children or parents. 
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988): 
  • In this case the Court denied maintenance to second wife during subsistence of husband’s first marriage on a strict interpretation of the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 of CrPC. 
  • The Court gave supremacy to the intention of the legislature which included divorced wife within the purview of Section 125 of CrPC but did not mention de facto wives whose marriages are void ab initio. 
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014): 
  • In this case the Court granted maintenance to the second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband’s first subsisting marriage. 
  • The Court in this case held that it was the bounden duty of the Court to advance the cause of justice.