Delhi High Court Upholds Maintenance To Woman From Second Marriage Despite No Formal Divorce From First Husband

The Delhi High Court has upheld a Family Court order granting maintenance to a woman from her second marriage despite the absence of a formal divorce decree from her first husband, observing that the expression “wife” under Section 125 CrPC must receive a liberal interpretation to further the provision's social justice objective.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a revision petition filed by the husband challenging the Family Court's order directing him to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife.

The husband argued that the respondent was not legally his “wife” under Section 125 CrPC because she had allegedly concealed her earlier marriage and had not obtained a divorce from her first husband before marrying him.

Opposing the plea, the wife submitted that she had lived with her first husband for only one month and had not seen him for nearly 12 years thereafter. She further contended that the petitioner was fully aware of these facts at the time of their marriage.

The High Court noted that the Family Court had already examined the issues in detail and recorded findings that the husband was fully aware of the wife's earlier marital status and that the parties had cohabited openly as husband and wife.

“When the marriage of the parties and their cohabitation as husband and wife were admitted, the respondent was a 'wife' within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC,” it observed.

Reliance was placed on N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, where the Supreme Court recently upheld the right of the wife therein to claim maintenance from her second marriage though no formal decree of divorce was passed in her first marriage, considering that the husband therein was unable to prove that he was unaware of the said prior marriage.

“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted with the objective to protect women from vagrancy and/ or destitution and hence, as victims of the social environment, their rights cannot be defeated by strict construction of beneficial provisions,” the Court said.

As such, the High Court refused to interfere with the family court order and dismissed the husband's petition.

Appearance: Ms. Madhumita Kothari, Advocate (Through VC) for Petitioner; Ms. Indu Kaul, Mr. Abhishekh Sahu and Mr. Vijender, Advocates Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Vikrant Kumar and Mr. Amar Bajpayee, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: RK v. PS

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 485/2018

Click here to read order