Back
Contradictory Marriage Dates Can't Quash Maintenance Claim Under :
Dismisses Petition to Halt Maintenance Case, Emphasizes Need for Trial on Relationship Status
In a significant ruling under the , the has refused to quash maintenance proceedings filed by a woman against a man who disputed their marital status. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma held that contradictory statements about the date and place of marriage do not, by themselves, justify the termination of a maintenance claim; the nature of the relationship must be determined through evidence at trial.
A Marriage in Contradiction
The petition was filed by Suraj Chetry, who sought to quash the proceedings in F.C(Crl) No. 557/2024 pending before the Principal Judge, . The respondent, Nayanmoni Choudhury, had claimed maintenance under , asserting that she was Chetry's lawfully wedded wife.
The petitioner, who had studied at the Indian Technical Institute in Guwahati from , alleged that the respondent had pursued him for marriage and later filed multiple false cases when he refused. He pointed to several contradictions in her statements: in one affidavit she claimed the marriage was solemnized on at Krishna Mandir, Narengi; in the maintenance petition she stated it occurred on at Dhemaji. Additionally, her accounts of pregnancies and a childbirth at Gauhati Medical College Hospital (GMCH) were inconsistent.
The Burden of Proof
Chetry argued that these contradictions revealed an ulterior motive to extract money and that the proceedings should be quashed as an .
The respondent, through counsel , countered that the fact of marriage could only be established through evidence at trial. She contended that the petitioner would have full opportunity to rebut her evidence, and that disputed factual questions could not be decided in a quashing proceeding.
Precedent on
The High Court found "sufficient force" in the respondent's submissions. Relying on the 's decision in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 675, the Court noted that if a claimant proves that the parties lived together as husband and wife, a legal marriage can be presumed, shifting the burden to the other party to rebut that presumption.
Justice Sharma observed that the contradictions regarding dates and places created "some doubt" but were not enough to extinguish the claim.
"The question regarding the nature of the relationship as to whether it amounted to a relationship of husband and wife is also required to be examined for the purpose of determining whether the respondent herein is entitled to maintenance,"
he held.
Key Observations
The Court stated:
"Although the contradictory statements of the respondent made in different proceedings as to the dates and places of marriage do create some doubt regarding the
, it is
that in a proceeding under
, it is sufficient to establish a
and the same can be established only in the course of a trial by adducing evidence."
Final Verdict: Case Must Proceed
The High Court declined to exercise its to quash the proceedings. The criminal petition was dismissed, and the maintenance case before the Family Court will continue for trial.
The ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance claims under the BNSS cannot be easily derailed by allegations of inconsistency. Where the existence of a is in dispute, the trial court—not the High Court in a quashing petition—is the proper forum to adjudicate conflicting facts.
