Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Maintenance Revision Under Section 125 CrPC — Marriage Presumed Valid Despite Husband's Denial. Long Cohabitation for 25 Years Raises Presumption of Marriage, Husband's Bare Denial Without Evidence Insufficient to Rebut.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 63
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The revision applicant, Sewanta w/o Kashinath Warati, filed a criminal revision before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dated 30-10-2003, which set aside the maintenance granted to her by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warora, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant claimed she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, Kashinath Warati, having married him about 25 years prior, and that the marriage was still subsisting. She alleged that after the respondent retired, he removed all household goods from their residence at Kutki to Hinganghat during her absence, leaving her with no means to cook or live, forcing her to stay with her mother. She claimed the respondent refused and neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means through his pension, and she sought maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month. The respondent denied the marriage, asserting that the applicant was previously married to one Namdeo Khudsange and that he had not performed any legal marriage with her. He claimed she was living with her son Ganesh and was not his legally wedded wife. The JMFC allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. However, the Sessions Judge, in revision, set aside that order, holding that the applicant failed to prove her marriage with the respondent. The High Court, in the present revision, examined the evidence and found that the applicant had examined herself and a witness, while the respondent did not examine any witness. The court noted that the applicant had lived with the respondent for about 25 years, which raised a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent's bare denial, without any evidence to prove the alleged prior marriage of the applicant or that it was subsisting, was insufficient to rebut this presumption. The court held that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not required; a presumption arises from long cohabitation. The court also noted that the respondent had admitted in his cross-examination that the applicant was his wife and that he had performed marriage with her. Therefore, the High Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the JMFC's order granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month from the date of the application. The revision was allowed.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Presumption of Marriage - The court considered whether a wife claiming maintenance must prove marriage strictly or whether a presumption arises from long cohabitation - Held that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not required; a presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation and the burden shifts to the husband to rebut it (Paras 3-5).

B) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Burden of Proof - The husband alleged that the wife was previously married to another man - The court held that the husband failed to produce any evidence to prove the alleged prior marriage or that it was subsisting - Held that the husband's bare denial without evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of marriage (Paras 4-5).

C) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Quantum of Maintenance - The wife claimed Rs.1000/- per month - The court considered the husband's pension and the wife's inability to maintain herself - Held that Rs.500/- per month is reasonable maintenance (Para 6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the JMFC granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the applicant from the date of the application.

Law Points

  • Presumption of marriage in maintenance proceedings
  • Standard of proof for marriage under Section 125 CrPC
  • Burden of proof on husband to disprove marriage
  • Maintenance for wife unable to maintain herself
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 120

Criminal Revision Application No.94 of 2004

2006-11-30

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.

Mr. R.B. Upadhyay for applicant, Miss. Nandita Parate for respondent

Sou.Sewanta w/o Kashinath Warati

Kashinath s/o Chirautu Warati

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision against order of Sessions Judge setting aside maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC.

Remedy Sought

The applicant (wife) sought restoration of maintenance order of Rs.500/- per month granted by JMFC.

Filing Reason

The Sessions Judge set aside the maintenance order on the ground that the applicant failed to prove her marriage with the respondent.

Previous Decisions

JMFC, Warora granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month in Misc. Criminal Application No.68/2000; Sessions Judge, Chandrapur set aside that order on 30-10-2003.

Issues

Whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Whether the presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation and whether the husband has rebutted it.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that she is the legally wedded wife, married 25 years ago, and the respondent neglected to maintain her. Respondent argued that the applicant was previously married to Namdeo Khudsange and that he did not perform any legal marriage with her.

Ratio Decidendi

In proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not required; a presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The burden shifts to the husband to rebut this presumption, and a bare denial without evidence is insufficient.

Judgment Excerpts

In proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not required. The presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation and the burden shifts to the husband to rebut it.

Procedural History

The applicant filed Misc. Criminal Application No.68/2000 before JMFC, Warora for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The JMFC granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. The respondent filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, who set aside the order on 30-10-2003. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 114
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Maintenance Revision Under Section 125 CrPC — Marriage Presumed Valid Despite Husband's Denial. Long Cohabitation for 25 Years Raises Presumption of Marriage, Husband's Bare Denial Without Evidence Insufficient to Re...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Partially Allows Employer's Appeal and Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Workmen Compensation Case — Employer Liable for 50% of Compensation Due to Lack of Insurance Coverage for Deceased Worker. The court upheld the a...