Section 125 CrPC: Wife is not required to provide strict proof of marriage to claim maintenance [Read the Order]

When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

May 15, 2019:

Delhi High Court has held that  law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. It has upheld the maintenance granted by trial court to the wife and negated the challenge of the husband.

A bench of Justice Sachdeva has passed the order in the case titled as NASIR KHAN vs SARPHINA GEORGE on 09.05.2019.

In a petition filed by wife under Section 125 CrPC, the trial court granted maintenance to wife. Aggrieved husband challenged the order before the High Court. His counsel argued that Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and has not been able to establish the factum of marriage. He submits that no proof of marriage was produced nor were the witnesses to the marriage produced by the respondent to prove the factum of marriage.

Wife had deposed that she got married to the petitioner in the year 1983. She had deposed that her marriage took place at about 10 am at Kotla Mubarakpur according to Muslim rites and customs and a Qazi was brought from the Nizamuddin area by the petitioner. She in her cross-examination stated that she could not file the Nikahnama and the photographs of the marriage as the same were in the custody of the petitioner husband. She had produced several documents to show that she was married to the respondent; and that they lived together as husband and wife at 1731, Kotla Mubarak Pur. New Delhi, since 1983 to May 2003.

However, on the basis of the aforesaid, the High Court was of the view that strict proof of marriage is not required for such maintenance petitions.

High Court observed "As held by the Supreme Court in Kamala & Ors Versus M.R Mohan Kumar unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. An order passed in an application under section 125 does not really determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain maintenance. Further it was held that when the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C".

High Court further obsrved "It is fairly well settled that law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years".

Ultimately the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband by saying that  it did not find any error in the trial court trial court judgment.

Read the Order here: