S.125 CrPC | 'Once Marital Relationship Is Disproved, There Cannot Be Any Order Of Maintenance': Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the respondent-woman had filed a criminal case against the revision petitioner in 2008 alleging that he made a false promise of marriage to her. This, the Court held, "demolishes the case of...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the respondent-woman had filed a criminal case against the revision petitioner in 2008 alleging that he made a false promise of marriage to her. This, the Court held, "demolishes the case of the Applicant that she had been married to the petitioner in 2005. Once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.”
The above ruling came in a criminal revision petition preferred against the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur in an Original Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr. P.C., whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent.
The primary basis for the challenge was that respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and they never cohabited in a marital relationship.
To support this contention, it was submitted that in 2008, respondent had filed a Complaint Case against the petitioner under Sections 417 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accusation was that the petitioner had initially agreed to marry, but when the respondent arrived with all the necessary documents for the marriage, the petitioner failed to appear. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the petitioner, citing a consensual relationship between the parties.
Notably, another case was initiated by respondent against the petitioner in 2016 under Sections 494, 495, and 498A of the IPC. Following an investigation, no cognizance was taken under Section 498A, IPC, as there was insufficient prima facie evidence to establish a marital relationship between the respondent and the petitioner.
The SPP for the State assisted by counsel for respondent while opposing the prayer, submitted that there was a presumption of marriage when the couple lived together and strict proof of marriage was not required to be proved by the applicant in the maintenance case.
At the outset the Court asserted that in the present case cloud is on the factum of marriage itself. There is a presumption of marriage where there is evidence that parties were living together. But the said presumption is rebuttable presumption, it said.
The Court held, “In the present case it is definite case of the Applicant that she was married to the petitioner on 5.5.2005. There is incontrovertible materials on record to show that she had filed c/1 No.850/2008 under Section 354 r/w 417 of the IPC, taking the plea that she lived together continuously for 4 years with the petitioner on a proposal of marriage, and on the said false promise of marriage he physically exploited the complainant.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the revision petition.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. L. C. N. Shahdeo, Advocate
For the State: Mr. V. Roy, SPP
For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2022
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh @ A. K. Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 16