Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Required To Claim Maintenance When Couple Have Been Living As Husband & Wife For Long Time: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that strict proof of marriage is not required while claiming maintenance under section 125 CrPC for a couple who had been living as husband and wife for a prolonged period of time. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "Where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period of time, strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 strict proof of marriage is not required. Wife has to prove prima facie case of marriage so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."The Petitioner/wife challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the Impugned Judgment/Order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2015, setting aside the maintenance payable to the wife on the ground that she failed to prove that she is married wife of the Opposite Party No. 2.According to the facts, the Petitioner's first marriage was dissolved on mutual consent and thereafter, the Petitioner started residing with her parents.The Opposite Party No. 2 and his father, Mr. Bhakti Kumar Das were in the business of money lending and the father of the Petitioner took a loan from them in order to purchase land in the said village. When the Opposite Party No. 2 visited the house of the petitioner in order to collect the interest of the said loan, the Petitioner became acquainted with him and gradually a love affair developed between them.It is stated that they thereafter eloped and got married and the Opposite Party No. 2 returned the Petitioner to her parental home assuring her that he would convince his parents and would very soon take her to her matrimonial home. It was stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Petitioner started living as husband and wife at the parental residence of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2 always used to give the Petitioner false assurance about taking her to the matrimonial home. It was stated that during this period, the Petitioner discovered that she became pregnant and when it was informed to the Opposite Party No. 2, that he is the father of such child, he became enraged and refused to accept the Petitioner as his wife and denied paternity of the child.It was stated that the parents of the Opposite Party No. 2 demanded a dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- failing which, they will not allow the Petitioner to enter her matrimonial home and would also not accept her as their daughter-in-law. The Petitioner failed to meet the demands of her in-laws and she was forcibly driven out from the matrimonial home.Having no means of supporting herself and her child, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Opposite Party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur praying for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.Upon hearing the arguments of the parties, the court noted that the Petitioner claims herself as legal wife of the Opposite Party No. 2 and she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance for herself and her child which had been granted by the trial court. However, it was noted that later, the decree of maintenance was modified to enhance the maintenance for the petitioner's daughter, while removing the maintenance accorded to her, because she had not been able to prove the subsistence of the marriage.The High Court, however, upon reading Sectiion 125 of the CrPC held that: The object behind the benevolent provision is to prevent vagrancy and ensure that the destitute woman and neglected children are provided promptly with sustenance. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose. It provides speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the wife and the children.Accordingly, it was held that no strict proof was required to be shown by the petitioner regarding her status as the wife of the opposite party. Thus the court modified the order of the ASJ and restored the maintenance payable by the husband to the petitioner.Case: Smt. Sunita Das Versus State of West Bengal & Another Case No: C.R.R. 3904 of 2016Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 259Click here to read order

Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Required To Claim Maintenance When Couple Have Been Living As Husband & Wife For Long Time: Calcutta HC

Srinjoy Das

Tags