The court emphasized the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure and the presumption of marriage even in live-in relationships, highlighting the onus on the person alleging divorce to prove cessation of the marital ties.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Divorce - Section 125 of Central Cr. P. C - Section 488 Cr. P. C - Section 125 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure - [Section 125 of Central Cr. P. C] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure and its intention to provide quick remedy to destitute wife. It emphasized that the proceedings before the Magistrate are summary in nature and cannot adjudicate complicated disputed questions like the factum of marriage or divorce. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 125 and held that the presumption of marriage arises even in live-in relationships, and strict proof of marriage is not a pre-condition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the order of the trial court and the Revisional Court granting maintenance to the respondent, who claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and sought maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P. C (now Section 125 of Central Cr. P. C). The petitioner contended that he had divorced the respondent as per Shariat Law and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's claim of divorce was disputed by the respondent, and at the stage of grant of interim maintenance, the Court was only supposed to look to the admitted factual position and not embark upon determination of disputed questions of fact. The court upheld the orders of the trial court and the Revisional Court, emphasizing that the respondent, being a deserted wife, was entitled to sustenance in the shape of interim maintenance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of divorce, the entitlement of the respondent to maintenance, and the amount of interim maintenance granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature and cannot adjudicate complicated disputed questions like the factum of marriage or divorce. It emphasized the presumption of marriage even in live-in relationships and the onus on the person alleging divorce to prove cessation of the marital ties.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed along with the connected application.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of order dated 6th of March, 2020, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore (the trial court) in case titled 'Gulshana Begum Vs. Hilal Ahmad Lone' and order dated 15th of December, 2020 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore (the Revisional Court) in the case titled 'Hilal Ahmad Lone Vs. Gulshana Begum'.

2. The relevant facts, as projected by the petitioner in this petition, in so far as these are necessary for determination of the controversy raised, may be, briefly, noticed.

3. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife having contracted their marriage in the year 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that right from inception, the conduct of respondent towards petitioner has remained unsatisfactory and unbecoming of a wife. Petitioners claims to have made numerous efforts to bring the strained relations between the parties on track but in vain. The petitioner, constrained by the circumstances created by the respondent, claims to have divorced respondent by executing a written divorce deed on 29th of May, 2019, which was steadily sent to the respondent through registered post. Petitioner relies upon the certificate of postal authorities to assert that the respondent has duly received the divorce deed.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent feeling annoyed on receiving the divorce deed and by way of counterblast, filed an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C (now Section 125 of Central Cr. P. C) before the trial court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- primarily on the ground that respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and has been, without any lawful excuse or justification, deserted by the petitioner.

5. The application for maintenance filed before the trial court is contested by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the respondent has ceased to be his wife having been divorced as per Shariat Law and, therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance. It is also the plea taken by the petitioner that the respondent is self sufficient and is earning Rs.11000/- per month while working as a teacher in a well reputed private school.

6. The trial court after considering the application and the stand of the respondent, vide order dated 6th of March, 2020, granted interim maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to the respondent to be paid by the petitioner from the date of application till the dismissal of main lis.

7. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the order dated 6th of March, 2020 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court also did not agree with the petitioner and vide its order dated 15th of December, 2020, upheld the order of the trial court granting maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to respondent. It is this order of the Revisional Court as also the order of the trial court which is assailed by the petitioner in this petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, inter alia, on the following grounds :

(i) That the learned Revisional Court has not appreciated the fact that in view of the divorce between the parties, the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C.

(ii) That the Revisional Court has also not appreciated the fact that the grant of Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the respondent was excessive and exorbitant keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is virtually unemployed and is surviving on the meager salary which he receives by working as a help in the shop owned and run by his father.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I find no substance in the plea raised by the petitioner before the trial court as well as Revisional Court and also before this Court. The facts in the instant case are not disputed. The petitioner and re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document