In Application For Maintenance U/S. 125 CrPC, Validity Of Marriage Need Not Be Conclusively Determined: Calcutta HC

The Court said that if there is reasonable presumption of marriage based on cohabitation then maintenance can be awarded without delving into the legality of the said marriage.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Revision Application challenging the judgement and order where the Magistrate directed the husband to pay a maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of the wife.

The bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, “…in an application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC the validity of marriage does not need to be conclusively determined. If there is reasonable presumption of marriage based on cohabitation then maintenance can be awarded without delving into the legality of the said marriage.”

Advocate Karan Bapuli appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Apalak Basu appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the legally married wife of the Petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The couple was married and were living in a house gifted to the Petitioner by his grandmother. It was alleged that the Petitioner inflicted physical abuse on his wife and his mother started threatening her and pressured her to bring dowry from her paternal home. Eventually, they drove her out of her matrimonial home. Despite efforts to reconcile, the Petitioner did not cooperate, hence, the wife filed for maintenance.

The Court said that in appreciation of evidence in a case under Section 125 of the CrPC, the principle of ‘preponderance of probability’ can be applied instead of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’.

The Court observed, “A spouse unable to maintain himself or herself is entitled to maintenance on the principle of equistatus and respect that the spouse would have enjoyed if he /she continued to live with the other spouse.”

The Court further said that while determining the amount of maintenance the court has to necessarily arrive at the prima facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimants.

“The determination cannot be made with exactitude. The provisions are only beneficent in nature and the power is exercised by the Court not only out of compassion but also by way of judicial duty so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse.” the Court explained.

The Court also said, “the purpose of paying maintenance is mainly two folds namely, to prevent vagrancy as a result of strained husband-wife relationships and to guarantee that the poor litigating spouse is not crippled as a result of a lack of funds to live a dignified life.”

Accordingly, the Court said that the wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the CrPC.

Finally, the Court dismissed the Revision Application.