October 25, 2018:
Bench said, in Maintenance Cases strict standard of proof is not necessary to conclude Marriage.
The Apex Court Bench of Justices R Bhanumati and Indira Banerjee was hearing an Appeal against an order by which the High Court has set aside the judgment of the family court which has directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellants – wife and children.
Husband/father of Children resisted the maintenance claim contending that he has never married appellant No.1 and denied her contention that appellants No.2 and 3 were born out to him and appellant No.1.
The respondent contended that when there is no valid marriage between the parties, petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained.
As per the evidence, the family court held that appellant No.1 has proved that there is husband-wife relationship between appellant No.1 and respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent was giving her a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month.
The family court further held that the case of the appellants is supported by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 which clearly establish that they lived under the same roof and the society also accepted them as husband and wife. On those findings, the family court vide its order dated 12.08.2008 allowed the appellant’s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the appellants No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008.
In appeal, the High Court has set aside the order of the family court and held that appellant No.1 was unable to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
After hearing both the sides Apex Court observed,''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.
In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675, this Court held that “the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned Judges explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that 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. The learned Judges held that maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions of living together could be reached.
When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are 9 legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles, in the case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and also begotten two children. Appellant No.1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the children appellants No.2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
It is fairly well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. ''
SC Judgement That a Couple Living Together and Having Children is Sufficient to Conclude Marriage for Maint... by Latest Laws Team on Scribd
Picture Source :
