Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The learned Magistrate, after inquiry, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 800 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 400 per month to the daughter. The respondent challenged this order in revision before the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision, cancelling the maintenance awarded to the petitioner on the ground that she had failed to prove she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, while maintaining the order for the daughter. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court examined the revisional court's order and found that the Magistrate had concluded that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife based on evidence, including the respondent's admission of an illicit relationship and the birth of a child. The High Court held that the revisional court had not properly appreciated the evidence and had erred in reversing the Magistrate's finding without sufficient justification. The High Court set aside the revisional court's order and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration, directing that the maintenance order in favour of the daughter be continued and that the petitioner be paid interim maintenance at the same rate as ordered by the Magistrate pending final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Legally Wedded Wife - Section 125 CrPC - The revisional court set aside the magistrate's order granting maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was not proved to be the legally wedded wife. The High Court held that the revisional court erred in ignoring the evidence on record, including the respondent's admission of illicit relationship and the birth of a child, which raised a presumption of marriage. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court was correct in cancelling maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that she failed to prove she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, dated 19 October 2013, and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration. The Sessions Court was directed to decide the revision application afresh after hearing both sides. Pending final decision, the order of maintenance in favour of the minor daughter Gayatri was to continue, and the petitioner was to be paid interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800 per month from the date of the application.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Legally wedded wife
- Standard of proof in maintenance proceedings
- Revisional court's scope
- Presumption of marriage from long cohabitation
