Author: Pavani Priya Akula, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Visvavidhyalayam
TO THE POINT
The present case in the hand is about granting of maintenance even if 1st marriage of the petitioner not dissolved under Law, but the women can claim maintenance from her 2nd husband. The present case delas with dissolution of 1st marriage and validity of 2nd marriage and of claiming maintenance. The present case is an Appeal in Supreme Court, where special Court and High Court gave different opinions regarding claiming of maintenance in the particular case and validity of second marriage even tough 1st marriage was not dissolved under Law.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Indian Law
1. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
2. Bigamy: The act of marrying someone while still being married to another person, which is prohibited under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Void marriage: A marriage that is considered invalid or non-existent under the law, such as a marriage performed without proper ceremonies or between parties who are not competent to marry.
4. Social justice: The principle of promoting fairness, equality, and human rights, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women and children.
Legal Concepts
1. Wife: A woman who is lawfully married to a man, including those who have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period.
2. Maintenance: Financial support provided by one spouse to the other, particularly in cases where one spouse is unable to maintain themselves.
3. Desertion: The act of abandoning one’s spouse without reasonable cause, which can be a ground for claiming maintenance.
4. Cruelty: Behavior by one spouse towards the other that is considered harsh, inhumane, or threatening, which can also be a ground for claiming maintenance.
Court Observations
1. Broad and expansive interpretation: The Supreme Court’s approach to interpreting the term “wife” under Section 125 CrPC to include those who have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period.
2. Social justice objective: The court’s emphasis on promoting social justice and protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, particularly women and children.
TO THE PROOF
Memorandum of understanding: Memorandum of understanding is produced by petitioner where the marriage between petitioner and her 1st husband was dissolved through Memorandum of understanding.
Section 125 of CrPC: it provides right to claim maintenance from husband. Even parents, children and husband can also claim maintenance. It provides right for an individual who was unable to maintain themselves.
Sections under Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 498A: This section deals with cruelty on women by her husband and relatives and punishment for cruelty is imprisonment for three years and fine.
Section 406: This section deals with criminal breach of trust, and punishment is based on the crime committed.
Section 506: This section includes Criminal Intimidation which means fearing someone to do particular act. Punishment includes imprisonment for 2 years and fine or both.
Section 420: This section includes cheating and dishonesty for this punishment includes seven year of imprisonment and fine.
Sections related to Dowry Prohibition Act:
Section 3: Giving and taking Dowry is treated as offence and for this punishment includes minimum imprisonment of five years and fine upto Rs. 15,000/-.
Section 4: It states that any person who demand Dowry directly or indirectly form the parents of the bride can be punished with imprisonment of minimum six months and it may extend to two years and fine may extend to Rs. 10,000/-.
ABSTRACT
The present case is filed by Smt. N. Usha Rani and her daughter against her husband for claiming maintenance. The petitioner was firstly married to Nomula Srinivas on 30/08/1999 during their wedlock they are blessed with a male child by name Sai Ganesh on 15/08/2000 and due to some marital disputes, they lived separately after returning from America on 2005 and they got executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 25/11/2005 and they got separated permanently.
Subsequently on 27/11/2005, petitioner and respondent got married to each other. Respondent having full knowledge about the petitioner’s 1st marriage and their separation. Due to some disputes respondent filed a Petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking a declaration that the marriage performed between petitioner and respondent is null and void under Law. According to the respondent’s contention Family Court, Hyderabad allowed the Petition and passed a decree on 01/02/2006 treating petitioner and respondent marriage null and void.
Again on 14/2/1006 respondent and petitioner got remarried again and the said marriage was officially registered with Registration of Marriage, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad on 11/9/2006. During their wedlock they also blessed with a daughter with name Venkata Harshini on 28/1/2008. Due some disputes which lead to allegations of Domestic abuse and harassment petitioner filed a complaint against respondent and her family under Section 498A, 406, 506, and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 following this she also filed a petition under Section 125 of CrPC for claiming maintenance.
The Special Court granted maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- to petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- to her minor daughter and stated that even though 1st marriage of the petitioner was not dissolved, but they lived together as wife and husband and they gave birth to the female child on these grounds Special Court granted maintenance to the petitioner and her minor daughter.
Respondent approached High court challenging the Special court order stating that even though petitioner and respondent was married and lived together as wife and Husband the marriage between petitioner and her 1st husband was not dissolved under law and on this ground, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. High court stated that petitioner was not entitled to seek maintenance and the maintenance of petitioner was kept set-aside and maintenance to minor was granted and also stated that the marriage between petitioner and her 1st husband was not dissolved under law Memorandum of understanding was not considered as legal document for dissolution of marriage and hence, she was not entitled to seek maintenance from respondent.
Petitioner approached Supreme Court challenging the High court order and Supreme Court restored the Special Court Order and stated that even though marriage between petitioner and her 1st husband was dissolved under law, but they separated by executing a Memorandum of Understanding and petitioner was lived with respondent as wife and respondent has full knowledge about petitioner’s 1st marriage and he married twice. After the marriage of petitioner and respondent she never contacted her 1st husband and so Memorandum of Understanding is considered as their separation even though they never separated legally under law and petitioner lived with respondent as wife and gave birth to the daughter and she can claim maintenance form her 2nd husband and here Memorandum of understanding is regarded as legal document of separation.
CASE LAWS
Supreme Court Cases
1. Bipin Chandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati (1957): The Supreme Court held that a Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
2. Kapoor v. Kaur (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that a wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not affected by her living separately from her husband.
3. Ramesh Chandra v. Veena Kaushal (1978): The Supreme Court held that a wife’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not conditional upon her proving that she is not living in adultery.
4. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993): The Supreme Court ruled that a wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be adjusted against the amount of maintenance awarded to her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
High Court Cases
1. Smt. Shashi Bala v. Shri Brij Kishore (1981) (Delhi High Court): The court held that a wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not barred by limitation.
2. Smt. Sunita v. Shri Satish Kumar (1985) (Punjab and Haryana High Court): The court ruled that a wife’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not affected by her failure to prove that she is living separately from her husband.
CONCLUSION
Hence, I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court decision even though the 1st marriage was not dissolved under law, but they executed a Memorandum of understanding and respondent had full knowledge about it he didn’t deny the marriage between petitioner and respondent but he denied for maintenance. The judgement by Supreme Court is absolutely correct because women should be provided with some income even after dissolution of marriage. In some cases, women of second marriage are not allowed to claim maintenance from husbands because on the ground that second wives had no right to claim maintenance from husband and in those cases, wives are becoming financially unstable and they also have to right to claim maintenance because they both lived as wife and husband for some period and this judgement gave strength to women. It is not possible when a pair was in illegal relationship then we can’t provide maintenance to that kind of couples and it violates the Law.
FAQS
1.Under which section maintenance can be claimed?
Under section 125 of CrPC maintenance can be claimed.
2.Under which section demanding Dowry is prohibited?
Under Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 demanding Dowry is prohibited.
3.Did Supreme Court consider Memorandum of Understanding as a valid document?
Yes, Supreme Court recorded Memorandum of Understanding as a valid document in this case.
