Without separation from the first husband, a woman is entitled to receive maintenance from the second husband also : The Supreme Court has given a big decision regarding the maintenance of the wife after separation from the husband. The court says that a woman is entitled to get maintenance from the second husband as well, even if their first marriage is not legally ended. The apex court says that if the woman and the first husband have separated by consent, then the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from the second husband.

Acceptance of woman’s appeal

The Telangana High Court had issued an order, in which the woman was denied maintenance from the second husband under Section 125 of the CrPC because she had not legally ended the marriage. Now the Supreme Court has accepted the woman’s appeal against the order of the High Court.

Legal and moral responsibility

A bench of Justice BV Nagaratna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the case. The court said, ‘Remember that the right to maintenance under section 125 of CrPC is not a benefit to the wife, but a legal and moral responsibility of the husband.’

Both separated due to discord

The appellant woman had married another man and the respondent in this case without formally divorcing her first husband. Both lived together and had a child, but due to discord, both separated. Now the woman had demanded maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, which was accepted by the family court.

First marriage not ended

Later the High Court quashed the order of the family court, because the first marriage was not legally ended. The respondent argues that the woman cannot be considered his wife, because she has not legally ended her marriage with the first husband.

No refusal to pay alimony

Now the Supreme Court says that when the respondent-second husband knew about the woman’s first marriage. In such a situation, he cannot refuse to pay maintenance just because the woman’s first marriage has not ended legally.

The truth was hidden from her

The court emphasized on two facts, ‘First, it is not the case of the respondent that the truth was hidden from her. The family court had clearly said that the respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of appellant number 1. The respondent married appellant 1 not once but twice knowing everything.’

No legal proof of divorce

The court said, ‘Second, appellant 1 has presented an MoU of separation from the first husband before this court. This is not a legal proof of divorce, but this document and other evidence shows that both the parties have ended the relationship and are living separately. Also, appellant 1 is not asking for maintenance from the first husband. In such a situation, the appellant has separated from the first husband in the absence of a legal document and she is not getting any rights from that marriage.’