Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025 INSC 129)
Facts of the case:
A. Smt. N. Usha Rani (wife/Appellant No. 1) married Nomula Srinivas(first husband) in 1999 and had a son in 2000. They separated in 2005 and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to dissolve their marriage.
B. She then married Moodudula Srinivas (second husband/Respondent) on 27.11.2005, but their marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court on 01.02.2006 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
C. Despite this, Smt. N. Usha Rani and Moodudula Srinivas (second husband/Respondent) remarried on 14.02.2006, had a daughter (Appellant No. 2) in 2008, but later separated.
Legal Dispute:
1. Wife/Appellant No. 1 filed a complaint against the second husband/Respondent under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 420 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. She also sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court awarded her ₹3,500/- per month and ₹5,000/- per month to their daughter.
3. The High Court set aside maintenance for wife/Appellant No. 1, holding that her first marriage was still legally subsisting, making her second marriage void.
Question before Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Issue: Can a woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband if her first marriage was legally subsisting making her second marriage void?
Arguments:
For Appellant: Relied on Rameshchandra Daga (2005) and Chanmuniya (2011), arguing that a woman in a de facto marriage deserves maintenance.
For Respondent: Cited Savitaben Bhatiya (2005), arguing that a second wife of a man with a subsisting marriage is not legally entitled to maintenance.
Final Decision:
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure and should be interpreted expansively.
The Supreme Court granted maintenance to wife, stating that denying her maintenance would lead to social injustice and destitution.
The ruling reinforced that men cannot escape financial obligations by exploiting legal technicalities.
Final word:
A woman who has lived as a wife and has been abandoned cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the marriage is technically void.
Edited & Reviewed by
9891800100