‘Strict proof of marriage immaterial for maintenance under Sec 125 CrPC’

Soumyadip Mullick, MP, 16 Oct 2024, Kolkata: Upholding a trial court order directing a husband to pay maintenance to his wife, the Calcutta High Court observed that strict proof of marriage is immaterial in application for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 

The Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed: “In appreciation of evidence in a case under Section 125 of the CrPC, I am of the opinion that the principle of ‘preponderance of probability’ can be applied instead of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’”. 

The petitioner (husband) challenged the trial court’s judgement and order directing him to pay maintenance allowance of Rs 4,000 per month to his wife who was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home following torture inflicted on her by the husband and her in-laws. 

Despite efforts of reconciliation the husband allegedly did not cooperate. Unable to maintain herself she filed for maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC. The couple had solemnised their marriage at the Tarapith Temple as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of the petitioner’s mother and few other persons. After marriage, the couple used to reside in the house gifted to the husband by his grandmother. 

The petitioner’s counsel submitted there was no documentary proof or photographs of marriage or any proof of them cohabiting together as husband and wife. 

The opposite party (wife) was allegedly making such claims to extract money from the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner is married to another lady and there is proof of that.

The wife’s counsel contended that the factum of marriage including date,place of the same has been duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt through corroborative supporting evidence. 

There were witness statements to corroborate their cohabitation as husband and wife. The court observed that even if the husband is already married to someone else, it does not dissuade the opposite party from claiming her right to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC since the petitioner’s second marriage by suppressing the earlier one is inconsequential to whether he was previously married or not. 

The court observed: “A spouse unable to maintain himself or herself is entitled to maintenance on the principle of equistatus and respect that the spouse would have enjoyed if he /she continued to live with the other spouse”. 

https://www.millenniumpost.in/bengal/cm-mamata-congratulates-omar-abdullah-583446?infinitescroll=1