A remarried wife cannot claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The revisionist-husband challenged the order dated 10 March 2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directing him to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife and ₹5,000 per month to their minor son.

The parties’ marriage had been dissolved by a divorce decree dated 30 July 2025. In connected appellate proceedings, the wife’s side stated that she had remarried on 3 September 2025, and the High Court’s order dated 19 September 2025 recorded the submission that she had remarried.

The husband thereafter objected before the Family Court on 30 October 2025 that, owing to her remarriage, the wife was no longer entitled to maintenance as his wife.

The Family Court nevertheless awarded maintenance to her. On the High Court’s direction, the Family Court Judge explained that no evidence of remarriage had been produced before him and that the wife had not disclosed the remarriage during the proceedings.

During the revision, the wife’s father filed a counter affidavit stating that maintenance was claimed only from the date of the Section 125 application until the wife’s remarriage; however, the date of remarriage was not clearly established on the record.

Whether a divorced wife who has subsequently remarried remains entitled to claim or continue receiving maintenance from her former husband under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C./Section 144(1) BNSS

Whether the Family Court’s direction awarding ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the remarried wife could be sustained when the fact of remarriage was borne out from the record but its date was not established

Whether the maintenance awarded to the minor son was liable to be interfered with

The Court applied Section 125(1), Explanation (b), Cr.P.C., and the corresponding Section 144(1), Explanation, BNSS, under which a “wife” may claim maintenance from her husband upon satisfying the statutory conditions.

The Court held that, upon remarriage, a woman ceases to fall within the statutory expression “wife” for the purpose of claiming maintenance from her former husband and therefore cannot claim or continue receiving such maintenance after remarriage.

It further reiterated that maintenance proceedings are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and that maintenance is not a loan.

The Court found that the material on record—including the statement made in the connected appeal and the specific averment in the counter affidavit filed by the wife’s father—established that the wife had remarried.

Although the exact date of remarriage was neither disclosed nor proved, the Court held that this uncertainty prevented ascertainment of the precise period for which maintenance could potentially have been claimed.

Since remarriage terminated the wife’s status as a statutory “wife” vis-à-vis the revisionist, the Family Court could not direct continuing maintenance to her under Section 125 Cr.P.C./Section 144 BNSS.

The Court therefore rejected the maintenance award in her favour, while preserving the separate entitlement of the minor son.

The order dated 10 March 2026 was modified to set aside the direction requiring the revisionist to pay maintenance to opposite party no. 2, the remarried wife.

The direction requiring payment of maintenance to the minor son remained unaffected.