The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a woman can seek maintenance from her second husband only if her previous marriage has been legally annulled or dissolved. The court also emphasized that while an illegitimate child is entitled to maintenance under the law, an illegitimate wife is not.

A Single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh, observed that “it is crystal clear that the wife should be a "legally wedded wife" for claiming maintenance from her husband. A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person, is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband.”

The case stemmed from a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that denied maintenance to the woman petitioner while granting ₹5,000 per month to her minor daughter until she reaches majority or marries. The woman claimed she married the respondent in 2005 according to Hindu rites and had a daughter with him. She alleged that the respondent and his family subjected her to cruelty, including harassment over dowry demands and for giving birth to a daughter.

She further asserted that the respondent, with significant income from agriculture, opium trade, and property dealings, neglected both her and their daughter. However, the respondent contended that the woman was already married to another man, rendering their marriage invalid due to the existence of her prior marriage.

The court found that the petitioner’s previous marriage had been sufficiently proven, with no divorce decree filed. Citing precedents, including Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat (2005), the court ruled that a second wife, whose marriage is void due to the subsistence of a prior marriage, cannot claim maintenance.

“An illegitimate child is entitled to get maintenance but an illegitimate wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The intention of legislature is obvious that maintenance can only be granted in favour of legally wedded wife,” the court noted.

However, expressing concern for women in similar situations, the court pointed out that legislative intervention is required to address such legal inadequacies. It stated, “Nevertheless, this Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and that legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed and unquestioned. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is frustrated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb. In the instant case, while the Court sympathizes with the position of the Respondent, it is constrained to deny her maintenance as per the law of the land which stands as of today.”

As a result, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance to the petitioner-wife while confirming the award of maintenance for the minor daughter.