Facts of the Case

• N. Usha Rani married Nomula Srinivas on 30 August 1999 in Hyderabad and on 15 August 2000 they gave birth to Sai Ganesh.
• After returning from the United States in February 2005, they started living apart and on 25 November 2005 they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to end their marriage.
• On 27 November 2005, Respondent and Appellant No.1 married; however, the marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court in Hyderabad and thereafter filed as a petition by Respondent.
• On 14 February 2006, Appellant No. 1 and Respondent were remarried and registered at Hyderabad Registry Office as per date 11 September 2006.
• From their marriage, Venkata Harshini (Appellant No. 2) was born on 28 January 2008 but differences arose later between them.
• Appellant No.1 then filed a criminal complaint against Respondent and his family members under various provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Dowry Prohibition Act.
• Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), an amount of Rs 3500 and Rs 5000 were awarded monthly by the Family Court to Appellant Nos 1 and 2, (mother and daughter respectively).
• While ruling on the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent, the High Court upheld its original decision regarding maintenance for daughter. However, maintenance award to Appellant No.1 was set aside on grounds that their first marriage had not been legally annulled thus rendering her legally incapable of becoming legal wife of Respondent.
• To finalise matters before Supreme Court.

What did the Court Say?

• It was noted by the Court that Respondent attempted to invalidate maintenance claims by asserting that their marriage was null ab initio as their second marriage of the Appellant No.1 had yet to dissolve.
• Court-appointed administrators noted two important facts:
  • That the initial marriage was not concealed from the Respondent.
  • That an MoU of Separation presented before the court does not indicate legal separation but instead suggests that both parties have made arrangements for living separately.
• Thus, the appellant divorced her first husband without being entitled to any rights from their marriage, according to the Apex Court's observation that provisions to foster social welfare must be implemented comprehensively and advantageously.
• One possible mischief which may arise in this case is if Appellant No. 1 requests dual maintenance, but this does not appear to be the case in this instance.
• Apex Court also held that maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is not some benefit accruing to women; rather it is their legal and moral duty which must be fulfilled. Accordingly, they allowed the appeal and granted maintenance to the wife in this particular case.
• Dwarka Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Others (1999) was another landmark case where maintenance was granted during a second marriage despite inconclusive evidence of marriage. Maintenance was granted even when proof was not conclusive.
• Court noted that provisions of Section 125 CrPC should not be used to undermine rights granted by legislation to destitute women, children, and parents.

Yamunabai Anantrao v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and others (1988)
In this case, the court denied maintenance to Yamunabai Anantrao because her first marriage had not been legally annulled under CrPC Section 125 and thus the term 'wife' could not be defined strictly enough as per legal definitions.

The Court upheld the intent of the legislature wherein divorced wives were also included within the ambit of Section 125 of CrPC; however, such wives whose marriage had been null and void ab initio were absent from such coverage.

To obtain more information, it is recommended that you reach out to Sharks of Law. Our experienced lawyers specialize in civil, criminal, and family law and could offer appropriate legal counsel based on the specifics of your case.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993