Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 652
High Court Of Calcutta
Alok Kumar Basu
KARTICK ROY - Appellant
Versus
PRABITRA ROY - Respondent
C. R. R. 2244 Of 2001
Decided On : 12/23/2003
HIMANSHU DE, JAYANTA BANERJEE, PUSHPAL SATPATI
In proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not required, and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship for the purpose of granting maintenance to a destitute woman.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CRPC - PROOF OF MARRIAGE - REQUIREMENTS - SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 125 CRPC - SCOPE OF MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRICT PROOF AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS INDICATING SOCIAL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION OF VOTER LIST, BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER - IMPLICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE ORDER - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 125 CRPC TO DESTITUTE WOMEN - ABSENCE OF PENAL ACTION - PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS - CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT WITNESSES - EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH MARRIAGE - SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE MARRIAGE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS - LIMITED GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH MAINTENANCE ORDERS - DISMISSAL OF REVISIONAL APPLICATION CHALLENGING MAINTENANCE ORDER DUE TO LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:
Husband challenged a maintenance order passed against him under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that the wife failed to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship, which is a precondition for maintenance. The wife relied on a xerox copy of the voter list, election identity card, birth certificate of the son, and school admission register to prove the marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that strict proof of marriage is not required in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides a source of maintenance for destitute women rather than imposing penal action. The court found that the wife had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the aforementioned documents, to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship, despite the absence of direct witnesses to the marriage ceremony.
Issues: 1. Whether strict proof of marriage is required in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC. 2. Whether the wife had presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship. 3. Whether the maintenance order passed against the husband was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 125 of the CrPC as not requiring strict proof of marriage, but rather allowing for the consideration of circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship. 2. The court found that the wife had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the voter list, birth certificate, and school admission register, to establish the existence of a husband-wife relationship, despite the absence of direct witnesses to the marriage ceremony. 3. The court held that the maintenance order passed against the husband was justified based on the evidence presented, as the wife had established the existence of a husband-wife relationship and was in need of maintenance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's revisional application challenging the maintenance order, finding no substantial grounds for interference with the order.
( 1 ) BOTH sides are present. Heard both sides. This is an application at the instance of the husband/opposite party of Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 with a prayer for setting aside the order of maintenance passed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in connection with the said maintenance case.
( 2 ) FROM the revision application as well as from the nature of submissions made on behalf of the present husband-petitioner it is very much clearthat the husband/petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance mainly on the ground that the very pre-condition for passing the order of maintenance, i. e. the husband-wife relation between the party was never existing and the wife- opposite party totally failed to discharge her onus in the matter of establishing that relation before the Court below.
( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband/petitioner has taken me through the judgment impugned in this application along with the evidence of both the wife-opposite-party and also the husband/petitioner. The learned Advocate submits that it will appear from the judgment that the learned Magistrate was more concerned about the theory "living together" but he totally missed the point that although strict proof of marriage is not called for in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that cannot exonerate the wife from showing some piece of evidence which will go to indicate that the parties were married under the existing custom to which they have faith and adherence.
( 4 ) THE learned Advocate contends that the wife/opposite-party only relied on a xerox copy of the voter list, election identity card, birth certificate of the son and school admission register to indicate that she was the wife of the present petitioner and the son was born out of the wedlock. The learned advocate contends that there is not a single witness to throw any light about the so-called marriage and the wife/opposite-party did not examine either the priest or any invitee on the alleged ground of their death.
( 5 ) THE learned Advocate submits that the husband, on the other hand, strongly challenged the factum of marriage both in his written statement as well as in his evidence before the Court below. It was the specific case of the husband/petitioner that he never married the. wife/opposite-party and there was never any husband-wife relation between the party. The learned Advocate therefore submits that as there was practically no proof of the marriage even in the voter list said that the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by accepting the opposite-party as wife of the present petitioner and thereby. . . . . the order of maintenance challenged in this application.
( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the wife/opposite-party has supported the judgment impugned in this application contending, inter-alia, that the learned Magistrate, after recording evidence of both the sides, was satisfied that there was ample evidence before him indicating husband-wife relationship between the party though there was no strict proof of the marriage and thai is not also required for a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate submits that it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to see that a stranger never comes before the Court with a claim of maintenance but at the same time it was the duty of the Court to see that a person should not refuse the claim of the legitimate wife taking a false plea that he had no relation with her The learned Advocate submits that when there is no direct evidence on the factum of marriage, the Court has the liberty to consider such circumstantial evidence in the form of relevant documents which will go to show that before the society both the petitioner and the opposite-party gained a social recognition and the publication of the name in the voter list, the birth certificate issued by a competent authority and also the ent
