Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order

21 September 2024 4:17 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Calcutta High Court, in Kailash Prasad Yadav v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., set aside an interim maintenance order awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was not his legally married wife, and there was an ongoing civil suit disputing their marital relationship. The court ruled that the validity of the marriage must be established prima facie before any maintenance can be granted, remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

Prima Facie Proof of Marriage is Essential in Maintenance Proceedings

The court held that the term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires a valid, legal marriage. Since the petitioner consistently denied the marriage and provided evidence of an existing marriage to another woman, the court emphasized the need to resolve the disputed marital relationship before awarding maintenance.

The case arose from a maintenance order granted to Respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent claimed to be the legally married wife of the petitioner, who contested this, asserting that she was merely his maid and that he had been married to another woman, Chinta Devi, since 1979. The petitioner provided various documents, including a marriage invitation card and nomination forms, to prove his existing marriage. Additionally, the petitioner filed a civil suit (T.S. No. 116 of 2018) seeking a declaration that the respondent was not his wife. Despite this, the trial court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to the respondent, which the petitioner challenged.

The central issue was whether the respondent was the petitioner's legally married wife. The petitioner vehemently denied this and provided substantial evidence of his existing marriage to Chinta Devi. The court clarified that the term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally valid marriage. When the fact of marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must first establish prima facie evidence of the marriage.

"The expression ‘Wife’ used in Section 125 of the Code refers to legally married wife... prima facie it is to be established that the claimant is a legally married wife before granting maintenance." [Para 8]

The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, even though the petitioner had consistently denied it and provided documentary evidence supporting his existing marriage. The High Court found this conclusion perverse and set aside the order, directing the trial court to rehear the matter.

"The finding of the court below is contrary to the materials available in the record... the marriage has to be established prima facie as a valid marriage." [Paras 6-8]

The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, giving both parties an opportunity to submit relevant documents and evidence concerning the disputed marriage and other issues. The lower court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks.

"The lower court must re-examine the issue of marital relationship and pass a fresh order after giving both parties the opportunity to present evidence." [Para 9]

The court found that the trial court’s order granting interim maintenance was based on an incorrect assumption that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was not in dispute. The High Court emphasized that the question of the marital relationship must be resolved before any maintenance order can be issued.

Perverse Findings: The court held that the trial court’s conclusion that the marriage was undisputed was "perverse" and contradicted the evidence presented by the petitioner.

Re-examination of Evidence: The case was remanded to the lower court, with directions to re-examine the disputed marital relationship and other relevant issues after allowing both parties to submit evidence.

The High Court also quashed the execution proceedings related to the interim maintenance order, which were challenged in a separate application (CRR 326 of 2024).

The Calcutta High Court set aside the interim maintenance order granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and remanded the case for a fresh hearing on the issue of whether the respondent was the legally married wife of the petitioner. The court reiterated the necessity of establishing prima facie proof of a valid marriage in maintenance cases, especially where the marital relationship is in serious dispute. Both applications, CRR 2554 of 2019 and CRR 326 of 2024, were allowed.

Date of Decision: 19/09/2024

Kailash Prasad Yadav v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Similar News