1. Maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by a woman and children alleging marriage and subsequent neglect by the husband. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1077
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
KAMALA AND OTHERS – Appellants
VERSUS
M.R. MOHAN KUMAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2368-2369 OF 2009
Decided On : 24-10-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Proceeding u/s 125 being summary in nature an order u/s 125 does not determine rights and obligations of the parties hence strict proof of marriage is not required for claiming maintenance u/s 125.
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 u/s 125.
High Court being the revisional court has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact.
Proceeding u/s 125 being summary in nature an order u/s 125 does not determine rights and obligations of the parties hence strict proof of marriage is not required for claiming maintenance u/s 125.
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 u/s 125.
High Court being the revisional court has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact.
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Proceeding summary in nature – Order u/s 125 not determining rights and obligations of the parties – Strict proof of marriage is not required for claiming maintenance u/s 125 – 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 u/s 125 – Instantly appellant wife showing by evidence that she and respondent were living together as husband and wife and begotten two children – appellant held entitled for maintenance u/s 125. (Para 15, 16)
(1999) 7 SCC 675; (2011) 1 SCC 141 – Relied upon
(1988) 1 SCC 530 – Referred
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Wife – Appellant-wife producing photos of her marriage with respondent – Also producing birth certificates of her children showing respondent as their father – Also adducing oral evidence – Held trial court rightly held appellant to be wife of the respondent. (Para 20)
(c) Administration of justice – Revisional jurisdiction – High Court being the revisional court has no power to reassess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 18.07.1998 against the wishes of their parents at Karrighatta temple near Sri Rangapattana and appellant No.2-daughter and appellant No.3-son were born out of the wedlock on 09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003 respectively and they lived in a house on rent in Saraswasthipuram, Mysore.
Further case of the appellants is that while the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was subsisting, the respondent married one Archana, who was his colleague on 01.04.2005, after which the appellants were neglected by the respondent and he was harassing appellant No.1. Being aggrieved of such treatment from respondent, appellant No.1 filed a police complaint and upon the direction of police, the respondent was paying Rs.3,000/-per month to the appellants towards their maintenance. Since appellant No.1 could not maintain herself and her children, she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.297/2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and the children from the respondent.
The family court held that appellant No.1 has proved that there is husband-wife relationship between appellant No.1 and respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent was giving her a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month. The family court allowed the appellant’s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/-per month to each of the appellants No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008. From the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/-per month each to appellants No.1 to 3.
In appeal, the High Court has set aside the order of the family court and held that appellant No.1 was unable to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
Trial court rightly recorded finding that appellant was wife of respondent and entitled to maintenance u/s 125.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires proof of a legally wedded marriage or if long-term cohabitation creates a presumption of marriage. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 )
3. Evidence of cohabitation, birth certificates, and social acceptance create a strong presumption of marriage, requiring a lower standard of proof than matrimonial trials. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20 )
4. The term wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is interpreted broadly to include long-term cohabitation to prevent vagrancy, presuming marriage over concubinage. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and appeals allowed; respondent directed to pay maintenance and arrears to the wife and children. (Para 22 )
6. What is the standard of proof for marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
The standard of proof is not as strict as in matrimonial proceedings or trials for bigamy. As a summary remedy intended to prevent vagrancy, maintenance cannot be denied where evidence exists to support the conclusion that the parties lived together as husband and wife. (Para 15 )
7. Does continuous cohabitation create a legal presumption of marriage?
Yes, the law presumes marriage over concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. While this presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on the party seeking to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. (Para 16 )
8. How is the term wife interpreted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to ensure social justice?
The term wife is given a broad and expansive interpretation to include cases where a man and woman lived together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period, ensuring the beneficial provision prevents destitution and upholds individual dignity. (Para 19 )
9. Can a revisional court substitute its own views on findings of fact?
No, a revisional court does not have the power to reassess evidence or substitute its own views on findings of fact recorded by the lower court. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.P.F.C. Nos. 103 of 2008 and 21 of 2009 in and by which the High Court has set aside the judgment of the family court which has directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellants – wife and children.
2. Case of the appellants is that marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 18.07.1998 against the wishes of their parents at Karrighatta temple near Sri Rangapattana and appellant No.2-daughter and appellant No.3-son were born out of the wedlock on 09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003 respectively and they lived in a house on rent in Saraswasthipuram, Mysore. Further case of the appellants is that while the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was subsisting, the respondent married one Archana, who was his colleague on 01.04.2005, after which the appellants were neglected by the respondent and he was harassing appellant No.1. Being aggrieved of such treatment from respondent, appellant No.1 filed a police complaint and upon the direction of police, the respondent was paying Rs.3,000/-per month to the appellants towards their maintenance. It is further averred that when they shifted from Saraswathipuram to Chamundipuram, the respondent continued to neglect them. Since appellant No.1 could not maintain herself and her children, she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.297/2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and the children from the respondent.
3. The respondent resisted the maintenance claim contending that he has never married appellant No.1 and denied her contention that appellants No.2 and 3 were born out to him and appellant No.1. The respondent contended that when there is no valid marriage between the parties, petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained.
4. Upon consideration of evidence, the family court held that appellant No.1 has proved that there is husband-wife relationship between appellant No.1 and respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent was giving her a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month. The family court further held that the case of the appellants is supported by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 which clearly establish that they lived under the same roof and the society also accepted them as husband and wife. On those findings, the family court vide its order dated 12.08.2008 allowed the appellant’s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/-per month to each of the appellants No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008. From the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/-per month each to appellants No.1 to 3.
5. In appeal, the High Court has set aside the order of the family court and held that appellant No.1 was unable to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The High Court further held that she has not produced any evidence to show that the marriage was solemnized as per custom and she, not being the legally wedded wife, is not entitled for any maintenance.
6. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the parties live as husband and wife under one roof, a presumption arises in favour of the person who asserts the existence of valid marriage. It was submitted that in the instant case, parties have entered into a wedlock in a temple and lived together and begot two children, hence, presumption arises in favour of appellant No.1 and the respondent failed to rebut the said presumption. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the family court after analysing the evidence brought on record, has recorded a finding of fact that appellant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 ar
