Back
Strict Proof of Marriage Not Required for Under If Is Established:
In a significant ruling aimed at preventing the , the has declared that strict proof of a formal marriage is not a mandatory prerequisite for granting under . Justice Achal Sachdev, presiding over the case of , held that where long-term and the birth of a child are established, technical evidentiary requirements should not be used to defeat the of the law.
The Breakdown of the Dispute The conflict arose from a petition filed by Smt. Sushila in , following her separation from Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary. The revisionist alleged that she and the respondent had moved into a in after applying for a court marriage. She claimed that during their time living together at the respondent’s government quarters in Gorakhpur, she was subjected to and assault, eventually being forced to leave with their minor son.
The , Maharajganj, had denied the application in , citing a lack of documented proof of a "" marriage. Ironically, the same court had acknowledged the child as an "" of the respondent, granting him a monthly of Rs. 5,000, while denying relief to the mother.
Legal Reasoning and the "" The High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the mechanical nature of the trial court’s judgment. Justice Sachdev noted that the trial court failed to consider crucial admissions made by the respondent, such as the couple’s and the of the child.
Drawing upon the ’s landmark precedents, particularly
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse
(2014), the Court reiterated that
is a social piece of legislation.
"Where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat the beneficial object of the provision,"
the Court observed.
Failure to Adhere to Beyond the issue of marriage status, the High Court identified a procedural lapse in the trial court’s failure to implement the guidelines mandated by the in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). These guidelines require parties in cases to file comprehensive of their .
The Court emphasized that without these affidavits, a just determination of
is impossible, noting:
"A decision rendered without consideration of the affidavits amounts to a departure from binding guidelines and reflects undue haste."
Key Observations from the Bench
*
On :
"The manner in which the issue no.1 has been dealt with, without taking into consideration the fact that ... they were in a relationship as husband and wife for a considerable period of time ... goes on to show clear non-application of mind."
*
On :
"
makes it obligatory for a father to maintain his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who is unable to maintain himself."
*
On :
"The trial court is duty-bound to direct both parties to file their respective affidavits in the prescribed format, and any failure to comply must be taken adversely against the defaulting party."
Looking Ahead The High Court has set aside the trial court’s denial of to Smt. Sushila and remanded the matter for . The has been instructed to: 1. Re-evaluate the claim in light of the demonstrated and . 2. Ensure both parties file mandatory per the Rajnesh guidelines. 3. Dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within .
By reinforcing the principle that substance takes precedence over technical form, this ruling provides a vital safeguard for women and children in cohabiting relationships, ensuring that they are not left without financial recourse due to the absence of formal documents in abusive, pseudo-marital, or breakdown scenarios.
