Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

"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