Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami
Refill Star Pakyntein, S/o- D. Early Peace – Appellant
Versus
Jaya Arora, D/o- Darshan Lal Arora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Parveen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2] By way of the instant two revision petitions i.e. Crl. Rev. P. No. 4/2012 and Crl. Rev. P. No. 138/2020, the petitioner is challenging the judgment & order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C.(Crl.) No.244/2009 under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) allowing the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per month to the respondent and judgment & order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Guwahati in Misc. Case No.191/2018, whereby the maintenance allowance of the petitioner is enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per month to Rs. 8,000/- (rupees eight thousand) per month. Accordingly, both the criminal revision petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
3] The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Family Court alleging inter alia that s
The court affirmed that maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be granted based on a less stringent standard of proof for marriage, emphasizing social justice for women.
A petitioner seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must prove a marital relationship, albeit with a less strict standard of proof.
In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not required; a prima facie view of marital status suffices for claims of maintenance.
Point of law: in the absence of material to show that the respondent's alieged first marriage with Smt. Prameela said to have taken place in 1974 was to the knowledge of the petitioner in the Family ....
Once such presumption of a lawful marriage commenced to operate in favour of a marriage which has taken place in fact, such a presumption alone would be good enough to entitle the wife to maintain.
Wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where husband fails to prove adultery or unjust refusal to cohabit; award upheld based on evidence of husband's business/land income contra labour ....
The Court clarified that a second wife whose marriage is void due to the survival of the first marriage is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the need for stri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
