Under Maintenance Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC Court May Not Usurp Jurisdiction Of Civil Courts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.

"Thus, the litmus test for determining the marital status of the parties in maintenance proceedings is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and nothing more. It is also pertinent to note that the abovementioned decisions bring out the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are designed to reduce the vagaries of the neglected wife and children," the Court said.

Reiterating that the Revisional Court need not re-assess or re-appreciate the material and evidence on record before the Trial Court, the Court observed:

"A Revisional Court is to limit its jurisdiction for adjudicating upon the material illegalities and irregularities apparent in the impugned orders. The conclusive determination of marital status in cases of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., shall therefore, be declared by the Civil Court and the Revisional Court shall restrain itself to the questions before it without reopening the evidence."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the a man seeking setting aside of the Order dated 3rd April, 2018 passed by a Family Court, whereby he was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 3,000 to two children each after they attain the age of maturity, alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.

It was stated that prior to the wife's marriage with the Petitioner, she was married and had four children out of that wedlock. It was alleged that the Petitioner had accepted her children and gave his name as their father in the school records.

It was further stated that the Petitioner along with respondents and said four children were residing together at their matrimonial house. However, due to disputes between the first wife of the Petitioner and present wife, the Petitioner had purchased a separate property and started living there alongwith the Respondents.

Subsequently, due to certain matrimonial issues between the parties, the Petitioner stopped paying maintenance to the Respondents and aggrieved by the same, the wife had filed a maintenance petition for herself and their two children under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court was of the opinion that the wife had established her relationship with the Petitioner as his wife and she was entitled to seek maintenance from him.

"A bare reading of the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. suggests that the intention of the legislature while making the provision for maintenance was to ensure that a person shall oblige with his matrimonial and familial obligations of maintaining his wife and children, when they do not have sufficient means to sustain themselves. The power to adjudicate on the issue of maintenance has been given, at the first instance, to the Magistrate, who may upon being satisfied direct the concerned person to provide such maintenance/monthly allowance to his wife, children or parents. There is, therefore, a discretionary power with the Magistrate that is to be exercised while appreciating the evidence and material on record when awarding maintenance to the parties," the Court observed.

The Court added that in matrimonial matters, the question of marriage between the parties may be raised during the preliminary stage and be considered and decided to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court.

"In so far as proving the existence of a marital relationship between the parties is concerned, the burden of proof would lie on the party alleging that such marriage has been solemnized in accordance with the law applicable, be it statutory or personal. However, the extent of proof is limited to the prima facie satisfaction and the need to prove it strictly and/or beyond reasonable doubt does not arise," it added.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court upheld the impugned order while finding no illegality in the findings and analysis of the Trial Court in upholding the existence of a martial relationship between the parties and accordingly, awarded maintenance to the Respondents.

"The learned Family Court, Karkardooma, Delhi, vide its judgment dated 3rd April, 2018, has taken the right view in light of the circumstances present before it. This Court does not find any substantial ground for invoking the Revisional Jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned judgment," the Court said while dismissing the petition.

Title: MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54

Click Here To Read Order