Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that the claimant has to only prove a prima facie case of marriage to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Calcutta High Court recently stated that when a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a significant period, strict proof of marriage is not required for the woman to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted that the claimant needs to establish only a prima facie case of marriage to qualify for maintenance.
“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,” the Court observed.
The Court made these remarks while considering a petition filed by a woman challenging an order issued by an Additional Sessions Judge.
The petitioner sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, claiming the child was born from her marriage to the respondent.
The petitioner asserted that she had married the respondent at Kalighat Temple in 2006. Following a breakdown in their relationship, she approached the judicial magistrate seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent, however, denied both the marriage and paternity of the child.
The magistrate awarded ₹2,000 per month as maintenance for both the petitioner and her daughter. However, on appeal by the respondent, the Additional Sessions Judge partially overturned this order. While denying maintenance to the petitioner on the grounds that she failed to prove the legality of the marriage, the Judge increased the maintenance for the minor daughter to ₹3,000 per month.
Unhappy with the decision, the petitioner appealed to the Calcutta High Court.
She argued that her marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites and customs, supported by documentary evidence. The petitioner further asserted that a civil court had already ruled in her favor, recognizing her as the respondent’s legally wedded wife and declaring their daughter as their legitimate child.
The respondent, however, denied the marriage, alleging that the petitioner had fabricated evidence, including the child’s birth certificate. He maintained that the petitioner had failed to prove her marital status and was therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The High Court set aside the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and reinstated the maintenance order in favor of the petitioner.
It noted that since the civil court had recognized the petitioner as the respondent’s legal wife and their child as legitimate, both were entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent.
The High Court further emphasized that Section 125 of the CrPC is a welfare provision aimed at preventing homelessness and ensuring that destitute women and neglected children receive prompt support for essential needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. It stressed that the provision is designed to provide immediate relief.
