Calcutta High Court rules that a strict marriage certificate is not required for maintenance if a couple has lived together as husband and wife for a long time.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a strict proof of marriage is not necessary for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC when a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a significant time. The Court upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife and her young daughter, overturning a previous decision by the Trial Court that denied maintenance because the wife could not prove her marriage to the husband. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted that when a couple has been living together for a reasonable duration, strict proof of marriage should not be a requirement for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In these cases, the wife only needs to show a prima facie case of marriage to support the intent of the maintenance provision in Section 125.
Advocate Subhamoy Bhattacharya represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Apalak Basu stood for the Opposite Party. The wife submitted a request under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance for herself and her young daughter. The Magistrate ordered the husband to provide monthly support to both. The husband then appealed to the Trial Court, which denied maintenance to the wife, stating she did not prove the marriage. However, the Court increased the maintenance for the daughter. The High Court emphasized that Section 125 aims to prevent poverty and ensure that needy women and neglected children receive timely support. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 serves a social purpose. It offers a quick solution for providing food, clothing, and shelter to the wife and children,” the Court noted.
The Bench also highlighted that the Magistrate had already recognized the wife as legally married and the daughter as the husband’s legitimate child in its Order. “Since the Learned Civil Court confirmed the Petitioner as the legal wife and her child as legitimate, both are entitled to maintenance from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party does not dispute this Judgment from the Learned Judge. The ongoing appeal does not stop the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court unless there is a stay. No stay has been granted by the Appellate court in this matter,” it stated. As a result, the Court partially overturned the Trial Court’s order regarding the wife’s legal status and her entitlement to maintenance. The High Court then instructed the husband to provide maintenance to the wife.
Cause Title: S v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Subhamoy Bhattacharya and Shankar Mukherjee
Opposite Party: Advocates Apalak Basu, Steven Biswas and Sanghamitra Mridha
