Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"High Court Recognizes Cohabitation as Basis for Presumed Marriage, Adjusts Maintenance in Landmark Ruling"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Jharkhand, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, upheld the presumption of marriage in a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., while revising the maintenance amount to Rs. 3000 per month. The case, Cr. Revision No.946 of 2022, involved petitioner Ram Kumar Ravi and the opposing parties, the State of Jharkhand and Nayana Kumari.

The original order, dated 20.05.2022, by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Ranchi, had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5000 per month to Nayana Kumari, who claimed to be his wife. The petitioner challenged this order, denying the legal validity of their marriage and contesting the quantum of maintenance awarded.

Justice Choudhary, in his order dated 12.01.2024, emphasized the concept of presumed marriage under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. "If the parties live together as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage can be drawn," the judgment stated, aligning with precedents in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999).

The court noted conflicting testimonies and evidence regarding the couple's marital status. However, it highlighted that the petitioner's shifting defense and lack of consistent material to rebut the presumption of marriage played a crucial role in its decision. "There is no consistent case, far less any cogent evidence, regarding the previous marriage of the applicant," the court observed, thereby rejecting the plea that Nayana Kumari was not married to the petitioner.

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court undertook a reassessment of the petitioner's income. Considering his handicapped status and the ambiguous details of his earnings, the court estimated his income to be in the range of Rs 10,000-12,000 per month. Consequently, the maintenance amount was reduced from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 3000 per month.

This judgment has significant implications for maintenance cases under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., particularly in situations where the legal status of a marriage is in question. The court's approach in this case reflects a broader understanding of marital relationships and the responsibilities therein, beyond the confines of strict legal definitions.

Date of Decision-12.01.2024

ABC VS The State of Jharkhand

 

Latest Legal News