Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Maintenance under, claimed by wife – Standard of proof required to prove marriage – Marriage between appellant No.1-wife (PW-1) and respondent-husband was solemnized against the wishes of their parents – Appellant No.2-daughter and appellant no.3-son were born out of the wedlock – However, after some time respondent allegedly started harassing the appellant no.1 and neglected the children – Appellant no.1 claimed maintenance – Respondent denied the factum of marriage – Family Court allowed the appellant’s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/- p.m to each of the appellants nos.2 and 3 – High Court set aside the order holding that appellant no.1 was unable to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent – Held: Based on the evidence of PW-1 and the birth certificates of the children and the photos, the Family Court rightly held that appellant no.1 has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent – Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings u/s.125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy – Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years – Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the Family Court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the Revisional Court had no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact – Appellant No.1 being the wife and appellants no.2 and 3 being their children are entitled to claim maintenance u/s.125 CrPC – Respondent to pay arrears of maintenance as directed by the Family Court within two months and also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants – Appellants at liberty to move the Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Based on the evidence of PW-1 and the number of documents in particular, the birth certificates of the children (Exts.P7-P8) and the photos (Exts.P1 to P3), the family court rightly held that appellant No.1 has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent. It is established that appellant No.1 and the respondent cohabitated as husband and wife and that the people around them treated them as husband and wife and the family court rightly held that appellant No.1 being a wife and appellants No.2 and 3 being their children are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 14] [511-G-H; 512-A-B]
1.2 Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles, in the case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and also begotten two children. Appellant No.1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the children appellants No.2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. [Paras 15, 16] [512-C, E-G]
1.3 On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1 (PW-1), birth certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts. P7-P8 dated 25.05.2001 and 06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral evidence of PW-2 who was co-worker of appellant No.1 and PW3-landlord, the family court held that appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and there is sufficient proof of marriage. The family court rightly drew the presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly established the factum of marriage. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court had no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary. The findings recorded by the family court as to the existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. [Paras 20, 21] [515-C-G]
1.4 The respondent shall pay arrears of maintenance as directed by the family court to the appellants within a period of two months. Additionally, the respondent shall also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family court on or before 10th of every English calendar month. The appellants are also at liberty to move the family court for enhancement of the maintenance. [Para 22] [515-G; 516-A] Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 684 –
relied on.
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530 : [1988] 2 SCR 809 ; Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha
(2011) 1 SCC 141 : [2010] 12 SCR 223
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.