Smt. N. Usha Rani vs. Moodudula Srinivas
Citation: 2025 INSC 129
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Background
Smt. N. Usha Rani married Moodudula Srinivas (the respondent) while her first marriage was still legally subsisting. She and her first husband had separated by mutual agreement, documented in a Memorandum of Understanding, but no formal divorce had been obtained. After disputes arose with Srinivas, she sought maintenance for herself and her daughter (from the second marriage) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Family Court granted maintenance to both, but the High Court set aside the award to Usha Rani, holding she could not be considered a "wife" as her first marriage was not dissolved.
Key Issues
Whether a woman whose first marriage is legally subsisting can claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 CrPC.
The interpretation of "wife" in the context of maintenance laws and the social justice objectives underlying Section 125 CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Expansive Interpretation of "Wife":
The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation and must be interpreted liberally to prevent destitution and vagrancy among women. The term "wife" should not be construed narrowly to defeat the provision’s purpose.
Knowledge of Prior Marriage:
The Court found that Srinivas was fully aware of Usha Rani’s first marriage and had married her twice despite this knowledge. Therefore, he could not take advantage of technical legal loopholes to evade his moral and legal duty to provide maintenance.
Separation and No Maintenance from First Husband:
Usha Rani was living separately from her first husband and was not receiving maintenance from him, making her vulnerable and in need of support.
Precedents Considered:
The Court distinguished earlier judgments that denied maintenance to a second wife during the subsistence of a first marriage, noting that those cases did not involve situations where the second husband knowingly entered the relationship. The Court cited Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), which granted maintenance to a second wife kept in the dark about her husband’s first marriage, and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011), which supported a broad reading of "wife" for maintenance purposes.
Social Justice Principle:
The Court reiterated that maintenance is not a privilege but a right, and the law’s objective is to provide financial security and dignity to women, especially homemakers without independent income.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Family Court’s direction granting maintenance to Usha Rani and her daughter. The judgment affirms that a woman can claim maintenance from a second husband even if her first marriage is not legally dissolved, provided she is separated from and not receiving support from her first husband, and the second husband was aware of the prior marriage.
Significance
This judgment marks a progressive step in interpreting maintenance laws, prioritizing women’s financial security and social justice over technicalities. It clarifies that the protective ambit of Section 125 CrPC extends to women in vulnerable situations, ensuring that legal loopholes do not defeat the law’s humanitarian purpose.
RELATED Blog
0 comments