Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Pre-Condition For Maintenance When Couple Has Been Living Together As Husband & Wife For Long Time: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC when a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time.
The Court affirmed the maintenance granted to the wife and her minor daughter, setting aside an earlier finding by the Trial Court that denied maintenance to the wife on the grounds that she failed to prove that she was the married wife of the husband.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed, “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.”
Advocate Subhamoy Bhattacharya appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Apalak Basu represented the Opposite Party.
The wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The Magistrate directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance to both the wife and the daughter.
The husband filed an Application before the Trial Court which denied maintenance to the wife, holding that she failed to prove the marriage. However, the Court enhanced the maintenance for the daughter.
The High Court pointed out that the object behind the benevolent provision of Section 125 of the CrPC was to prevent vagrancy and ensure that destitute women and neglected children are provided promptly with sustenance. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose. It provides speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the wife and the children,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also noted that the Magistrate had already declared the wife was a legally married wife and the female child as a legitimate child of the husband in its Order. “When the Learned Civil Court declared Petitioner is legal wife and her child is legitimate, then both of them are entitled to get maintenance from the Opposite Party. It is not disputed by the Opposite Party with regards to the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Learned Judge. Pendency of appeal does not preclude to pay maintenance awarded by the Trial Court unless any stay. No stay is granted by the Appellate court in this regard,” it stated.
Consequently, the Court partly set aside the order of the Trial Court to the extent that the wife was not the legal wife of the husband and she was not entitled to get maintenance.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife.
Cause Title: S v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Subhamoy Bhattacharya and Shankar Mukherjee
Opposite Party: Advocates Apalak Basu, Steven Biswas and Sanghamitra Mridha
