-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Calcutta High Court on November 27, 2024, overturned a Sessions Court order that denied maintenance to the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta reinstated the trial court’s award of ₹2,000 monthly maintenance for the petitioner-wife and upheld the enhanced ₹3,000 monthly maintenance for her minor daughter.
The judgment emphasized the social purpose of maintenance laws, clarifying that strict proof of marriage is not mandatory under Section 125 CrPC and that cohabitation for a reasonable period establishes a presumption of marriage.
The petitioner claimed she married the respondent at Kalighat Temple in 2006 and had a child from the relationship. After alleged dowry demands and domestic abuse, the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home. The Sessions Court denied her maintenance, citing a lack of evidence to prove marriage.
Reversing the Sessions Court, Justice Gupta held: "Where a man and woman have cohabited as husband and wife for a reasonable period, a presumption of marriage arises. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC aim to prevent destitution and must be interpreted with a view to achieve social justice."
The Court further noted that: "Strict proof of marriage is not required. Prima facie evidence of a marital relationship is sufficient to grant maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."
In a parallel civil suit initiated by the respondent to declare the petitioner’s marriage void and her child illegitimate, the Civil Court ruled on March 30, 2017, that the petitioner was the respondent’s legally married wife and the child was legitimate.
Justice Gupta highlighted: "The Civil Court’s declaration that the petitioner is the lawful wife and the child is legitimate fortifies her entitlement to maintenance. The pendency of an appeal does not stay the execution of maintenance unless explicitly ordered."
The Sessions Court had enhanced the minor daughter’s maintenance from ₹2,000 to ₹3,000 per month, which neither party contested. Affirming this enhancement, the High Court reiterated:
"The welfare of the child is paramount. The enhancement of maintenance to ₹3,000 is reasonable and ensures the child’s needs are met."
The Court warned the respondent of consequences for non-compliance:
"Failure to pay maintenance as ordered will render the respondent liable to execution proceedings under CrPC."
The High Court restored the petitioner’s maintenance and upheld the enhanced amount for the child. The judgment reinforced the protective intent of Section 125 CrPC, ensuring sustenance for destitute women and children.
Date of Decision: November 27, 2024
