In a landmark judgment, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta of the Calcutta High Court ruled that strict proof of marriage is not mandatory for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a significant period. The court emphasized that a prima facie case of marriage suffices to fulfill the spirit of the provision aimed at preventing destitution.
This decision came in response to a criminal revision petition challenging an earlier order that had denied maintenance to a woman but awarded Rs. 3,000 per month for her minor daughter from the man alleged to be her husband.
Case Background:
The petitioner claimed to have married the respondent in 2006 at a Kolkata temple as per Hindu rites. Following their union, the couple lived as husband and wife, resulting in the birth of their daughter in 2007. However, the respondent later denied the marriage and paternity of the child, leading to protracted legal battles.
Key legal Issues:
– The petitioner initially sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her child.
– An earlier revision partially denied maintenance to the petitioner, awarding only the child.
– In a parallel civil suit, the petitioner was declared the legal wife, and the child was recognized as legitimate.
Issues Addressed by the High Court:
1. Entitlement to Maintenance Without Strict Proof of Marriage
– Justice Gupta clarified that living together as husband and wife for a reasonable time provides sufficient grounds for a prima facie case under Section 125 CrPC. The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not undermine the objective of ensuring sustenance for vulnerable parties.
2. Financial Hardship and Obligations
– Observing the petitioner’s dire financial condition and her dependency on her aged father, the court reinstated her maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month and upheld the Rs. 3,000 monthly allowance for the child.
3. Binding Nature of Civil Court Findings
– The High Court recognized the civil court’s declaration of the petitioner’s legal marital status as authoritative. Justice Gupta noted that the absence of a stay on this ruling by the appellate court further solidified her entitlement to maintenance.
Key Observations of the Court:
Justice Gupta underscored:
“Where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable period, strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The true spirit of this beneficial provision must be preserved.”
He further added:
“The benevolent objective of Section 125 is to prevent vagrancy and ensure sustenance for destitute women and children. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter.”
Key Legal Representation:
– For Petitioner: Advocates representing the petitioner argued the case based on the couple’s cohabitation and the civil court’s ruling in her favor.
– For Respondent: The opposing counsel contested the marital validity and the legitimacy of claims but could not overturn the previous civil court findings.
