Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that Supreme Court has emphasised on the broad interpretation of the term “wife” under Section 125 of CrPC and the presumption of marriage in cases of long cohabitation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) contesting a maintenance order due to the lack of a formally recognized marriage, was upheld by a single-judge bench led by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia. The court affirmed the maintenance order in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the imperative of averting destitution and ensuring social equity under Section 125 of CrPC.
In this case, the petitioner challenged orders from the Magistrate of Gram Nyayalaya Balaghat and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, instructing the petitioner to provide monthly maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 1,500 per month. The petitioner contended that the respondent wasn’t legally wedded to him as their marriage ceremony didn’t occur in a temple, and the rituals weren’t substantiated. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged false accusations, including an FIR under Section 376 of IPC. The petitioner argued that the absence of a legally recognized marriage invalidated the maintenance order. It was argued that the Trial Court failed to establish the legality of the marriage, thus questioning the respondent’s eligibility for maintenance. However, the respondent argued that they lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period, with the birth of a child further solidifying their relationship, thus entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Court observed that the trial court didn’t explicitly determine whether the respondent wasn’t the petitioner’s legally wedded wife, but stated the respondent failed to prove the rituals or the marriage being conducted in a temple. Nonetheless, the trial court determined that “since the applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife for a considerable period and the respondent has also given birth to a child, therefore respondent is entitled to maintenance.”
Citing Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491, the Court stressed that in proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, strict marriage proof isn’t required, and maintenance can’t be denied solely on the grounds of no legal marriage if there’s evidence of cohabitation and childbirth. The Supreme Court noted that when parties cohabit as spouses, there’s a presumption of marriage, especially with evidence of prolonged cohabitation and offspring. Referring to Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, where the Supreme Court held that maintenance can’t be refused where there’s proof of living together as a married couple, the Court emphasized a broad and inclusive interpretation of the term “wife” to fulfill the social objective of Section 125 of CrPC.
The Court concluded that since the petitioner and respondent lived together and had a child, the respondent is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court dismissed the Section 482 application and upheld the lower courts’ orders instructing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent. The Court found no flaw in awarding maintenance considering the circumstances of the case, despite the Trial Court’s lack of a specific ruling on the legality of the marriage.