The Supreme Court of India held that alimony or maintenance that a woman receives due to her first divorce will not be a reason to deny or minimise alimony on divorce the second time. A Bench of In both instances, the object of the justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih was that there is a marriage and subsequent dissolution and that a woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This was an appeal which was being determined by the Court, where the husband, following the reconciliation between him and his wife, had alleged that since his wife already received permanent alimony in her previous marital relationship, she should not be entitled to other maintenance in this case. Dismissing this argument, the Bench upheld that the right to maintenance promotes social justice and the financial well-being of women and cannot be restricted based on the earlier settlements. The determination highlights that maintenance is not a one-off payment within the entire lifetime of a woman, but an ongoing responsibility that goes hand in hand with the case of each marital relationship dissolution. It empowers the rights of women and eliminates the financial weakness following the recurrent failure of marriages.