The Supreme Court has said it cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a woman from her second husband, even if her first marriage was allegedly subsisting in the legal sense.

"It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband," a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the woman against the High Court's judgment of April 13, 2017 which aside the award of Rs 5000 monthly maintenance to her by holding that she could not be considered the legal wife of the respondent as her first marriage with another man was not dissolved through a legal decree.

'In the opinion of this court, when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to the appellant. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction," the bench said.

The court noted the Family Court made a factual finding that the appellant married the respondent and that finding is not disputed by him. Instead, the respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to her is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting.

The bench pointed out two other pertinent facts, firstly, it is not the case of the respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a specific finding that respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the appellant.

"Therefore, respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, she places before this court an MoU of separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband," the bench said.

Therefore, the court said, barring the absence of a legal decree, appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.