Strict Proof Of Marriage Can't Be Condition Precedent For Claiming Maintenance: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a prolonged cohabitation as husband and wife would entitle partners to maintenance even if even if performance of essential ceremonies is not proved.

The Court rejected the plea challenging the maintenance order on the ground that essential marriage ceremonies were not performed, wherein the parties were "cohabitating as husband and wife for about two decades."

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Being alive to the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that strict proof of marriage cannot be made a condition precedent for claiming maintenance under the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as it would be antithetical to the legislative intent behind the same."

It would be against the interest of justice to require the marriage to be proved beyond reasonable doubt since, as previously observed, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is beneficial in nature and aims to avoid vagrancy or destitution to dependents, the Court further added.

The Court was hearing the revision plea of a man against Family Court's order which awarded Rs.6,000 maintenance to be paid to his partner.

It was stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in 1996. However, a matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the woman filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

The petitioner contended that provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked by a legally wedded wife. The petitioner is Muslim whereas the marriage, as alleged by the respondent, took place in Gurudwara revered by the Sikh community, he submitted.

Nothing on the record reflects that the marriage was solemnised and essential ceremonies were performed in furtherance of the same, he added.

After hearing the submissions the Court considered, "Whether strict proof of marriage is required to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?"

Answering the question the Court said, that marriage is not required to be proved to file a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, "while the same would be necessary to make out the offence of bigamy as defined under Section 494 of the IPC, the standard of proof required under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains preponderance of probabilities."

It would be against the interest of justice to require the marriage to be proved beyond reasonable doubt since, as, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is beneficial in nature and aims to avoid vagrancy or destitution to dependents, added the Court.

The judge noted that the petitioner claimed to be Muslim. However, it can be reasonably deduced from the circumstances that his partner was aware of the same.

"While two persons belonging to different religions cannot get married under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the law permits the same under Special Marriage Act, 1954. As such, the respondent's claim for maintenance cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the marriage was solemnised in a Gurudwara in Punjab," it observed.

Justice Brar concluded the following:

(i) For the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the existence of a marriage does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof applicable in this regard would be preponderance of probabilities

(ii) Prolonged cohabitation as husband and wife would entitle the partners to relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even if performance of essential ceremonies to solemnise a marriage remain unproven.

Perusing Family Court's order the judge said, it is evident that the Court below had duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance.

"A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of the respondent," the Bench added.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 124

XXX v. XXX

Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner