The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a woman’s inability to obtain a divorce from a prior marriage does not bar her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. This ruling overturns a Family Court’s erroneous conclusion that legal marital status under personal law is a prerequisite for statutory maintenance, reinforcing the humanitarian and procedural intent of the provision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Heerabai Shrivastava, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Jabalpur, seeking monthly maintenance from her husband, Suresh Kumar Shrivastava. The respondent admitted to having sufficient means but opposed the claim on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained a legal divorce from her previous husband, thereby rendering her current marriage invalid under personal law.
Key Facts
- The petitioner entered into a marriage with the respondent in 1995
- She was previously married in 1978 but had not obtained a decree of divorce from her first husband
- The respondent acknowledged financial capacity to pay maintenance
- No allegations of desertion, cruelty, or misconduct were raised against the petitioner
- The Family Court dismissed the application on 28.06.2016 solely on the basis of the petitioner’s unresolved prior marriage
Procedural History
- 1995: Petitioner married respondent
- 2009: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed before Family Court (MJC No. 73/2009)
- 28.06.2016: Family Court dismissed application, holding petitioner not a "legally married wife" due to unannulled prior marriage
- 16.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 1918 of 2016 filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court
- 17.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought reversal of the Family Court’s order and a direction to grant maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of the status of her prior marriage.
The Legal Issue
Can a woman be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC solely because she has not obtained a divorce from a previous husband, even if she is living with her current husband as his wife?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
No advocate appeared for the petitioner. However, the Court noted that the petitioner’s application was based on the statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which does not require proof of a valid marriage under personal law. The provision is remedial in nature and intended to prevent destitution.
For the Respondent
No advocate appeared for the respondent either. The Family Court’s reasoning, however, reflected the respondent’s position: that the petitioner’s marriage was void under Hindu personal law due to subsisting marriage, and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the object and scope of Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing its humanitarian purpose to ensure that dependents are not left destitute. It observed that the provision is not contingent upon the validity of marriage under personal law, but on the fact of cohabitation and the husband’s ability to maintain.
"The object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wives, children and parents, and it is not necessary that the wife should be legally married in the eyes of personal law to claim maintenance."
The Court relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in N. Usha Rani and Another v. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225, wherein it was held that a woman living with a man as his wife, even if the marriage is void due to subsisting marriage, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court erred in conflating civil validity of marriage with statutory entitlement to maintenance.
The Court further noted that Section 125 CrPC operates independently of personal law and is designed to protect women from economic hardship, regardless of the technicalities of marital status. The dismissal of the application on this ground was legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The criminal revision is allowed. The Family Court’s order dated 28.06.2016 is set aside. The application under Section 125 CrPC is restored to its original number and remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. The Family Court shall pass a fresh order without being influenced by the earlier erroneous finding. If either party fails to appear, fresh summons shall be issued. Pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Is Not Dependent on Valid Marriage
- Practitioners must argue that Section 125 CrPC applies to women in de facto marital relationships, even if the marriage is void under personal law
- Courts cannot deny maintenance on grounds of bigamy or unannulled prior marriage
- The focus must be on economic dependency and the husband’s means, not marital validity
Procedural Fairness in Maintenance Proceedings
- Family Courts must not dismiss applications on preliminary grounds without examining evidence of cohabitation and financial support
- The burden is on the husband to prove inability to maintain, not on the wife to prove marital validity
- Applications under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and must be decided expeditiously
Judicial Alignment with Supreme Court Precedent
- Lower courts must follow N. Usha Rani and similar precedents without requiring strict compliance with personal law
- Denial of maintenance on grounds of bigamy is now legally untenable
- This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rights under CrPC override restrictive interpretations of personal law
