In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has reiterated that the nullity of a marriage does not preclude a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The judgment was delivered by Justice G. Ilangovan, who dismissed a petition seeking to recall an earlier order granting maintenance to a wife.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a marriage between individuals from different religionsโHinduism and Christianity. The marriage was allegedly solemnized in a temple, with the tying of a thali (mangalsutra), which is a customary practice in Hindu marriages. However, the petitioner contended that this marriage was not valid as it was not conducted under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which governs inter-religious marriages in India.
The original dispute had reached the Madras High Court in Crl.RC(MD)No.518 of 2021, where the court ordered maintenance for the respondent based on the long period of cohabitation between the parties and the birth of a child during their relationship. The petitioner failed to challenge the validity of the marriage at that stage, leading to the current recall petition.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal question before the court was whether the nullity of the marriage, as claimed by the petitioner, could invalidate the respondent’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that since the marriage was not valid under law, the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance.
However, Justice G. Ilangovan pointed out that the issue of nullity of marriage does not automatically disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance. Citing the Supreme Court’s stance, the court emphasized that even if a marriage is declared null, the wifeโs right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains intact, provided that there was cohabitation between the parties.
Court’s Decision and Observations
In his order dated December 4, 2023, Justice Ilangovan dismissed the recall petition, stating that the petitionerโs arguments were untenable. The judge observed that the petitioner had the opportunity to raise these issues during the original trial and in the revision petition but failed to do so.
The court further noted that long cohabitation between the parties, along with the existence of a child, formed a sufficient basis for the maintenance order. Quoting the Supreme Courtโs judgment in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642), the court reiterated that inherent powers to recall an order could only be exercised in cases where the order was passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, none of which were applicable in this case.
In rejecting the petitionerโs claim, the court underscored, โThe nullity of marriage, even if declared by a competent civil court, is not a bar for the wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The delay in seeking maintenance cannot disqualify the wife, especially considering the circumstances that change with age.โ
Also Read
Parties and Representation
The petitioner was represented by Mr. N. Jayavel, appearing for Mr. S. Jayakumar, while the respondent was represented by Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian. The case, listed as Crl.MP(MD)No.12577 of 2023, sought to challenge the previous decision in Crl.RC(MD)No.518 of 2021, but ultimately, the recall petition was dismissed by the court.
