Subsistence Of Wife's First Marriage Not Always Bar To Maintenance From Second Husband: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an award of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to a woman whose earlier marriage was alleged to be subsisting on the date of her marriage to the petitioner-husband, holding that such an objection, by itself, cannot defeat a claim for maintenance. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 272]Dismissing the second husband's criminal revision, Justice Mandeep Pannu observed,"the parties had lived together for a considerable period as husband and wife and a child was also born from the said relationship. The petitioner seeks to defeat the claim of respondent No.1 primarily on the basis of the alleged subsistence of her earlier marriage. However, in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani (supra), such an objection, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient to non- suit a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly when the surrounding circumstances and the nature and duration of the relationship are taken into consideration."In Smt. N. Usha Rani and another vs. Moodududla Srinivas (2025), the Supreme Court in the facts before it, held that a woman could claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even though her first marriage had not been dissolved by a decree of divorce, where she was de facto separated from her first husband and was not deriving any rights or entitlements from the first marriage, particularly where the second husband was aware of the circumstances and had nevertheless entered into the relationship with her. In this backdrop, the High Court emphasised that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and "its application cannot be defeated by technicalities where the factual circumstances otherwise justify the grant of maintenance."It further refused to deny maintenance on the ground that the respondent-wife is an educated lady and had worked as a teacher. It held, "The entitlement to maintenance has to be considered on the basis of the material regarding the actual means and circumstances of the parties and the statutory parameters governing a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C."The wife's case was that she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and repeated dowry demands compelling her to leave the matrimonial home, and that the husband had neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient means.Family Court had granted ₹5,000 per month maintenance to the wife and ₹2,500 per month to the child until he attains majority, as opposed to claim of ₹30,000 per month.On the husband's plea that an earlier maintenance petition on the same cause of action had been dismissed in default, the High Court held this did not advance the husband's case at all.A dismissal in default, it observed, is fundamentally different from an adjudication of the claim on merits. The husband had not been able to demonstrate that the earlier proceedings culminated in any final determination on merits disentitling the wife from pursuing her present claim, and mere dismissal for non-prosecution, without adjudication of the substantive claim cannot operate as a bar to fresh proceedings.On the principal legal objection of their marriage being void, the Court held that while there could be no quarrel with Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others' (2005) where the Supreme Court rejected the claim of maintenance by the second wife, it held that the same was rendered on its own facts and the legal position had since been considered in N. Usha Rani (supra).That decision, the High Court noted, had traced the divergence in judicial opinion, including Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011), where the Court favoured a broad and expansive reading of "wife" so as to include a woman who had lived with a man for a reasonably long period, and emphasised that a man should not be permitted to exploit legal loopholes by enjoying the benefits of a de facto marriage while avoiding its corresponding obligations.In the light of above the Court dismissed the revision and directed that the maintenance awarded remain undisturbed. Title: Jagga Ram v. Neelam Rani and anotherAppearances: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Click here to read order

Subsistence Of Wife's First Marriage Not Always Bar To Maintenance From Second Husband: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Subsistence Of Wife's First Marriage Not Always Bar To Maintenance From Second Husband: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers