Calcutta High Court: A revision application was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31-05-2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate wherein it was directed that the husband (petitioner) will pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to the wife (opposite party) under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) arising from a case filed by the wife seeking maintenance, claiming that she was unable to support herself after being driven out of her matrimonial home following marital discord and alleged mistreatment by her husband and his family. Bibhas Ranjan De., upheld the maintenance order because the object behind providing maintenance, to a spouse is to the effect that the spouse can maintain herself or himself and not unduly suffer for want of funds.
The couple’s marriage took place as per Hindu rites at Tarapith Temple, however, after marriage, they resided together at the husband’s house in Hetampur, gifted to him by his grandmother. Soon, however, the husband began returning home late and subjected his wife to physical abuse. His mother also harassed the wife, demanding Rs. 1 lakh from her parents for the husband’s business, ultimately forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. Despite her attempts to reconcile, the husband refused to support her financially, forcing her to rely on her parents.
After evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, the Magistrate found that there was sufficient proof of cohabitation between the petitioner and the opposite party as husband and wife, which is enough to grant maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court concluded that the wife had been subjected to physical and emotional abuse and had been driven out of her home, and that the petitioner had failed to provide for her. Consequently, the Court granted a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000 in favor of the wife which stands impugned in the present petition.
Counsel for husband argued that there was no conclusive proof of marriage or cohabitation. He contended that the opposite party had failed to provide documentary evidence or photographs proving the marriage, and that there were contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies. Additionally, he alleged that the opposite party had previously been married and had not provided any documents to prove the dissolution of her earlier marriage. He further claimed that he was already married to another woman and thus, the opposite party could not claim maintenance as she was not legally his wife.
Counsel for wife refuted the claims, asserting that the marriage had been proven beyond reasonable doubt through corroborative evidence, including witness testimony. He argued that cohabitation was sufficient proof to establish a marital relationship for the purposes of a maintenance claim under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Court noted that the standard of proof required for a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC is not as stringent as in cases involving criminal offenses such as bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The Courts have consistently held that the primary concern in such cases is whether the parties lived together as husband and wife, not the strict legality of the marriage. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of maintenance to include women who had cohabited with a man under the impression of being his wife, regardless of the legality of the marriage.
The argument that the wife cannot claim maintenance due to his existing marriage is unpersuasive. Even if he was already married, the principle states that a man cannot deny maintenance to a woman he cohabited with by relying on his own wrongful conduct, such as suppressing his prior marriage. Furthermore, the contradictions in witness testimonies raised by the petitioner are minor and immaterial, failing to discredit the core facts of the case—namely, that the parties lived together as husband and wife and that the opposite party was subjected to mistreatment before being forced to leave.
Thus, the Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner’s defenses, including the lack of documentary proof of marriage and his existing marriage, were found to be insufficient to negate the wife’s claim. The husband’s conduct in suppressing his first marriage and cohabiting with the wife warranted maintenance under the established legal principles. Therefore, the Court upheld the Magistrate’s order of Rs. 4,000 monthly maintenance to the wife.
In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the revision application and dismissed it, affirming the lower court’s judgment.
[Palash Das v. Keya Ganguli, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 9384, decided on 04-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Bapuli, Adv.
For the Opposite party: Mr. Apalak Basu, Adv. Mr. Amrita Sinha, Adv.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
