Denial of Marriage Fails Against Documentary Evidence & Summary Nature of S. 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Wife's Maintenance

Allahabad High Court Upholds Wife's Maintenance, Rejects Husband's Marriage Denial and Plea for Reduction

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging maintenance orders issued in favour of his wife under Section 125 and Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court upheld the Family Court's finding that the applicant woman was the legally wedded wife, based on substantial documentary evidence and oral testimony, and affirmed the maintenance amount, noting it was reasonable based on the husband's admitted pension.

The revisionist, identified as Matapher , had challenged two orders: the first, dated December 10, 2019, by the Additional Principal Judge, IIIrd, Family Court, Allahabad, granting Rs. 7,000/- per month maintenance to Smt. Durga Devi under Section 125 CrPC; and the second, dated December 7, 2022, by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-2, Allahabad, rejecting his application under Section 127 CrPC for alteration of the maintenance amount.

Husband's Defence: Denial of Marriage and Paternity

Matapher 's primary argument was that Smt. Durga Devi was not his legally wedded wife and their two children were not his. He claimed his marriage was solemnized with Gayatri Devi , with whom he had two sons. He alleged that Smt. Durga Devi , in collusion with his brother, had fabricated documents and filed false cases to illegally claim his property and income. He also contended that Smt. Durga Devi cultivated his agricultural land and earned income from it, and that their children were settled, negating her need for maintenance. He further argued that the trial court wrongly included agricultural income in calculating his total income and granting maintenance, especially considering his advanced age (79) and health issues.

Wife's Stand and Supporting Evidence

Smt. Durga Devi maintained that she was married to Matapher in 1972 according to Hindu rites and customs, and their two children were born from this wedlock. She stated that Matapher left her around 1992 after the birth of their son and later refused to maintain her. She argued that the trial court's orders were based on careful consideration of evidence and applicable law.

Crucially, Smt. Durga Devi presented significant documentary evidence, including her Aadhaar card, the Village Family Register, school marksheets and certificates of both children, her identity card, and the ration card, all showing Matapher as her husband and the father of her children. These documents pre-dated the maintenance application. Oral testimonies from Smt. Durga Devi , Matapher 's brother (supporting Smt. Durga Devi 's claim), and Smt. Durga Devi 's brother also corroborated her marriage and parentage claims.

High Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented before the trial court. It noted that the documentary evidence filed by Smt. Durga Devi were largely public documents with a presumption of genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act. The court highlighted Matapher 's admission that he became aware of these documents in 2015 but failed to file any police complaint or court case regarding their alleged forgery, leading the court to infer their authenticity.

Regarding Matapher 's claim of marriage to Gayatri Devi and presence of her name in his service record and medical papers, the High Court observed that Matapher failed to produce any reliable oral or documentary evidence proving his marriage to Gayatri Devi . The court concluded that the service book and medical papers merely corroborated Smt. Durga Devi 's claim that Matapher had left her and was living with another woman.

The High Court reiterated the summary nature and social purpose of Section 125 CrPC, citing several Supreme Court judgments (including Anju Garg & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg , Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena , Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq , Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) , Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat , Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , and Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma ) emphasizing its objective to prevent vagrancy and destitution and provide a speedy remedy to deserted wives, children, and parents. The court noted that for the purpose of Section 125, only a prima facie finding of wife status is required. Based on the extensive corroborating evidence, the High Court found the trial court was correct in concluding that Smt. Durga Devi was the legally wedded wife.

On the quantum of maintenance, the court considered Matapher 's admitted monthly pension of Rs. 34,656/- after retirement. Citing Supreme Court precedents in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs. Rita Dey Chaudhary , which suggest around 25% of the husband's net income as appropriate maintenance for the wife, the High Court calculated 25% of Matapher 's pension to be Rs. 8,664/-.

Even if the disputed agricultural income was excluded, the maintenance amount granted by the trial court (Rs. 7,000/-) was found to be lower than 25% of his admitted pension alone. Therefore, the court held that the maintenance allowance was not excessive, but rather on the lower side, justifying the trial court's rejection of the Section 127 application for reduction.

Decision

Finding no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the trial court's orders, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision. The court directed that the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 7,000/- granted to Smt. Durga Devi shall be payable from the date of her Section 125 application and ordered Matapher to pay the arrears in four equal installments within six months, with any amounts already paid to be set off.

The judgment underscores the importance of documentary evidence in maintenance proceedings and reinforces the benevolent nature of Section 125 CrPC aimed at providing social justice to vulnerable sections.