The Allahabad High Court recently observed that u/s 125(which deals with maintenance) of CrPC, strict proof showing essential marriage rites were performed is not necessary.
The Court held that if there is material on record to suggest that parties were married or were in a marital nature relationship, the Court can presume in favour of the woman claiming maintenance. The Bench opined that the underlying intent of Section 125 was to provide social justice to children, women or parents.
Irshad Ali filed the revision petition against the Principal Judge’s order, Family Court directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3000 / month from the date of application and Rs. 2000 / month from the date of order.
Contentions raised before the High Court:-
The petitioner raised the following contentions before the Court:-
- Maintenance order passed beyond Principal Judge’s jurisdiction
- The marriage was void because the husband was a minor, and his signatures on the documents were fabricated.
On the other hand, it was argued that proceedings u/s 125 were of summary nature, and the wife has established that she was married to the revisionist.
Issues Before the Court:-
The revisionist raised two main issues before the Court:-
- Whether the OP was able to prove that she is legally wedded to the revisionist.
- Whether OP can claim maintenance u/s 125 of CrPC or not.
The reasoning of the Court
The Court opined that u/s 125 there is no need to determine the parties’ rights and obligations as it is a summary remedy for providing instant maintenance to parents, wife or kids.
Reliance was placed on Ramesh Chandra Kaushal vs Veena Kaushal where the Apex Court held that Section 125 was a social measure, enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and is reinforced by Article 39.
Hon’ble Court also opined that the marriage’s validity could not be a ground for refusal of maintenance if other requirements of Section 125 are fulfilled.
The revisionist’s contention that the Court should re-examine the case’s documents has also refused, and it was noted that under revisional jurisdiction, the Court could not re-examine such records.
The Bench upheld the Principal Judge’s maintenance order. The Court observed no illegality or perversity in the order, and the maintenance award is not arbitrary or excessive.
Title: Irshad Ali vs State of UP & Anr
Case No.:CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1555 of 2020
Date of Order:08.01.2021
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ram Beer Singh