Cohabitation as 'husband and wife' requires proof for maintenance claims under Section 125, CrPC, and lack of evidence invalidates interim maintenance awards.

ORDER :

M.I. ARUN, J.

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

"A. To allow the criminal petition.

B. To quash the entire criminal proceedings under section 125 of CrPC against the petitioner vide CRL.Misc.No.143/2022 registered by the Respondent and pending before Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC Court Hosadurga.

C. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022 has been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, she has contended that though she was not legally wedded to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent have lived like husband and wife. Based on the said assumption, the trial Court has granted an interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner. The same has been challenged herein.

3. The impugned order reads as follows:

"Petitioner has filed this petition U/s 125 of Cr.P.C and IA.No.I U/Sec.125[1] of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

It is stated in the affidavit that petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. The respondent has willfully neglected the petitioner and failed to provide sufficient means for her livelihood. The respondent working as Incharge Sub-Registrar of Hosadurga and getting month salary and he has neglected to take care of the petitioner to provide basic necessities to her Petitioner is not able to maintain herself an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to petitioner is required for her maintenance. If application is not allowed she will be put to great hardship.

The petitioner has not produced any documents to show the exact income of the respondent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary to direct the respondent to pay certain amount for maintenance of the petitioner pending disposal of the case. Hence, the court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Respondent is hereby directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner till further orders.

P.F.paid. Issue notice on this order to respondent and notice on main petition to respondent.

Call on 6-10-2022."

4. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the averments made by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.143/2022, she is not the wife of the petitioner, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C').

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more so in Smt. N. Usha Rani and Another Vs. Moodudula Srinivas reported in [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1442: 2025 INSC 129, it has been held that when two persons lived as husband and wife, then in that event, irrespective of whether they are married or not, the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on paragraph No.15 of the said judgment, which reads as folllows:

15. This divergence in judicial opinion has been noted by the Court in Chanmuniya (supra) and therefore the question of whether women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance, u/s. 125 CrPC was referred to a larger bench. The discussion, to the extent relevant, is reproduced below:

“24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and