Strict proof of marriage not precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently observed that if a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long time, there is no need to provide strict proof of marriage for a woman to claim maintenance from her partner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)..Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that the claimant only has to prove a prima facie case of marriage to be entitled to such maintenance.“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 Court observed..The Court made these observations while hearing a woman's (petitioner) challenge to an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge.The petitioner sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter who was alleged to have been born out of a marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner claimed that she had married the respondent at Kalighat Temple in 2006. After the relations between the two soured, the petitioner approached the judicial magistrate for maintenance from the respondent. The respondent, meanwhile, denied having married the petitioner or having fathered the child. The magistrate granted maintenance of ₹2,000 each for the petitioner and her daughter. However, this decision was partially overturned on an appeal by the respondent. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge denied maintenance for the petitioner, holding that she failed to establish the legality of her marriage, but increased the maintenance payable by the respondent for the minor daughter to ₹3,000 monthly. Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court..The petitioner argued that her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs, as supported by documentary evidence. She contended that the civil court had already ruled in her favour, declaring her as the respondent's legally wedded wife and her daughter as their legitimate child. The respondent denied the marital relationship, alleging that the petitioner fabricated evidence, including the child's birth certificate. The respondent claimed the petitioner failed to prove her marital status, and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. .However, the High Court overturned the decision by the Additional Sessions Judge and restored the maintenance order in favour of the petitioner.The Court observed that since the civil court declared the petitioner as the respondent's legal wife and her child as legitimate, both were entitled to maintenance from the respondent. The High Court also reiterated that Section 125 of the CrPC aims to prevent homelessness and ensure that destitute women and neglected children receive quick support for basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. The Court noted that it is a social welfare provision designed to provide immediate relief..Advocates Subhamoy Bhattacharya and Shankar Mukherjee appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Apalak Basu, Steven Biswas, and Sanghamitra Mridha appeared for the respondent. .Note: An initial version of the story incorrectly carried the image of another judge. We regret the error..[Read Order]