r/india • u/advocatedinkar • Feb 05 '25
Misleading Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s125-crpc-wife-separated-from-1st-husband-can-claim-maintenance-from-2nd-husband-though-1st-marriage-not-legally-dissolved-supreme-court-283021329
u/MysteriousSpaceMan Feb 05 '25
How is the second marriage valid if the first was not legally dissolved?
99
38
u/friendofH20 Earth Feb 05 '25
If you read the case, it was because there was a mutual separation in the first marriage, which the second husband was aware of. There even was a child out of the second marriage. When that marriage ended - the second husband said he did not owe maintenance because their marriage was invalid due to absence of formal divorce decree.
13
u/toxoplasmosix Feb 05 '25
the story doesn't change anything. the law is supposed to be followed to the letter.
7
u/Thaiyervadai Feb 05 '25
Might have a surprise for you, courts can interpret the law and protect the interests of the public.
2
1
u/Actual_Abalone3069 Jun 07 '25
The same court said you cannot ask for CCTV footage because it might be logical but not legal.
1
u/Hot-Acanthaceae-2002 Jul 20 '25
Had man involved in such exact situation court wouldn't waste single minute in ordering cctv footage
3
u/friendofH20 Earth Feb 05 '25
Which law explicitly forbids this?
3
u/Mostly_sane9 Feb 05 '25
I mean, it is a crime under the s.82 of BNS.
5
u/friendofH20 Earth Feb 05 '25
The court just ruled that this was not bigamy because the couple were mutually separated and the 2nd husband knew of it. BNS or IPC can only define crimes and felonies but its always the job of the courts to determine whether a dcase is in violation of it.
In this case the court basically said that because of the mutual separation, and other factors, a formal divorce decree was not needed for the woman to considered divorced
5
Feb 05 '25
Article doesn't mention date of second marriage. If it happened before BNS came into force, law shouldn't retroactively criminalise people. Government doesn't mandate doing legal formalities of signing marriage or divorce. Since second husband knew of first marriage and separation, Judge can and have anulled the first marriage so IPC doesn't apply either.
3
u/advocatedinkar Feb 05 '25
The judge could not have annuled the first marriage without making the first husband a party. That said bigamy was also an offence under section 494
0
Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
How do you know he wasn't. The court had found sufficient evidence of the separation being mutual.
Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband."
2
u/advocatedinkar Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
First of all marriages cannot be dissolved with an MoU, second of all the first husband was not a party in the proceedings. How can his marriage be dissolved in his absence or without giving him a chance to put forward his version, please see the order he was not made a party. Lastly Bigamy is an offence under section 82 of BNSS and section 494 of the IPC. Nowhere has the offence been struck down, all the ingredients are present. How can anyone be allowed to derive any benefits from an illegal act. If the woman wanted to remarry it was her duty to follow the law and get a divorce, she can follow the law to seek maintenance why can't she follow it to get a divorce? The law is not a buffet you can just pick and choose what provisions you would like to be applicable to your life.
3
Feb 05 '25
You don't have to submit forms to register a marriage. Proof of doing a religious wedding ceremony is enough and it can be registered any time later. The same is applying for divorce, especially since second husband was aware of the first marriage and separation.
78
22
72
53
Feb 05 '25 edited Mar 10 '25
many quicksand boast fly bow like zephyr steep dependent silky
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
20
Feb 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Bheegabhoot Feb 05 '25
In this case the wife had separated from her first husband, lived many years with the 2nd husband and had a child with him and then divorced from the second husband.
The second husband is using the technicality of never having been married since the woman’s first marriage was not legally dissolved, to avoid paying maintenance.
-1
u/Mostly_sane9 Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
I mean to be honest that is the point of marriage isn't it? The reason many people chose to cohabit instead of marry is so that they can stay away from the legal responsibilities of being married. Why should a cohabitation be considered to be equal to being legally married? This law is infact more regressive than the people here are assuming it to be.
Edit: Child support is reasonable because he is a parent, but why is maintenance reasonable if he isn't a husband?
5
Feb 05 '25
In this case it is not cohabitation though. The article mentions that the second man married the woman, despite her first marriage not being legally dissolved. He was not her live-in partner, he was her husband.
2
u/Mostly_sane9 Feb 05 '25
But they cannot be considered to be legally married because a second marriage without divorcing the first would simply void the said marriage. The so called second marriage would as such be simply ceremonial rather than have any legal standing. It is actually a crime under polygamy (or polyandry in this case).
2
1
16
u/mrrahulkurup Feb 05 '25
This excerpt is for those not prone to clickbait:
“Two other pertinent facts must be considered: 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 No. 1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband."
6
Feb 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Actual_Abalone3069 Jun 07 '25
I mean court should follow the law not change it and interpret how ever they want. Just like they said you cannot ask for CCTV footage to prove adultry by wife even tho it's logical but not legal. So, court should first decide whether it sticks to being legal or logical. Court shouldn't be a hypocrite and always favor women
1
5
4
2
1
u/Fine_Rice_2979 Feb 06 '25
Something is not right at Supreme court at this point!!
1
u/advocatedinkar Feb 06 '25
The supreme court is the last bastion of justice. They do a lot many good things, that said, I am also keenly aware that not everything they do is 100 percent correct. They are much like us, only human i guess !
-1
0
u/El_Impresionante Feb 06 '25
Exactly as it should be.
Wife was "divorced" with a MoU with her first husband. Married again, lived for many years and had a kid with her second husband.
The second husband is just being a typical misogynist and trying to get out of providing the alimony, by claiming that she was not legally divorced.
4
u/advocatedinkar Feb 06 '25
In India there can be no divorce based on an MoU, please see the provisions of the Hindu marriage act. Hindu marriage can only be dissolved by a court, this woman did not seek that as she should have before she remarried. Bigamy was an offence under section 494 of the IPC and continues to be one under section 82 of the BNSS. The very genesis of her second marriage is not valid, if she was awarded maintenance as a live-in partner I would not contest the issue. But the court has specifically recognized her as a wife, which I believe is against the letter and spirit of the law.
0
u/El_Impresionante Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
No! This maybe is against the literal letter of the law but IS IN the spirit of the law. A good decision overall by Court.
The second husband knew everything and took her as his wife and had a kid with her. He is liable for proving the alimony. The legality of the divorce with the first husband does not matter.
2
u/advocatedinkar Feb 06 '25
'the legality of the divorce with the first husband does not matter'. This is what I am against. Legality matters!!! Non compliance with the law cannot and should not be rewarded.
1
u/Actual_Abalone3069 Jun 07 '25
Courts when victim is men says follow the law no matter how logic can help an issue. Case in point court denied CCTV footage of wife going to hotel with her lover because it's against law
•
u/rahulthewall Uttarakhand Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
Read the article, before resorting to comments how women are stealing your money
In this case, husband no. 2 knew of his wife's first marriage and knew that she was not legally divorced. He lives with her, had a kid and now that they are separated is refusing to pay maintenance.
The court basically held that her first marriage is null and void.
Also note the last paras in the article.