Woman Living As Wife For Long Time Entitled To Maintenance From Husband In Absence Of Proof That She Is Not 'Legally Wedded': MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that a woman will be entitled to maintenance when the parties are living as husband and wife for a long time, given that there is no specific finding that she is not the legally wedded wife.In the instant case, the single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia concluded that the trial court was right in awarding maintenance to the...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that a woman will be entitled to maintenance when the parties are living as husband and wife for a long time, given that there is no specific finding that she is not the legally wedded wife.
In the instant case, the single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia concluded that the trial court was right in awarding maintenance to the aggrieved woman.
“….this Court is of considered opinion that since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for a considerable long time and in absence of any specific finding by the Trial Court that respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by awarding maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order after considering the totality of facts and circumstances in the case.
While holding as aforesaid, the court also placed extensive reliance on Supreme Court decisions in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwah & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141 and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 188. Since the petitioner husband had not challenged the quantum of maintenance before High Court, the single judge bench kept the lower court order intact by dismissing the current petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Justice G S Ahluwalia initially observed that the trial court has not given any specific finding that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The court emphasized that the Balaghat Additional Sessions Judge merely stated that the respondent woman could not sufficiently prove the rituals or the factum that the marriage was performed in a temple. After making the above observations, the trial court itself had reached the conclusion that the man and woman has been living as husband and wife for a considerably long period of time. During that time period, the respondent wife had even given birth to a child and the trial court deemed it fit to allow the application for grant of maintenance.
Agreeing with the reasoning adopted by the trial court, the High Court iterated the decision in Kamala & Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019) wherein it was held that strict proof of marriage is not essential for maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A similar view was also taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Pushpa Pandey & Anr. v. Suresh Pandey (2016).
Before the High Court, the major contention put forward by the applicant husband was that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife, and therefore, she can't claim any maintenance from him. The counsel for the applicant also made certain allegations against the respondent for allegedly dragging the husband into criminal cases and for targeting the applicant husband deliberately for his father's wealth.
In 2021, Magistrate, Gram Nyayalaya, Balaghat had ordered the applicant to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 1500/-per month to the respondent wife. Later, In 2015, the First Additional District Judge, Balaghat affirmed the order in the criminal revision filed by the husband.
Advocate Priyal Rahangdale appeared for the husband.
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 30262 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 76