"Living Together Presumes Marriage: Calcutta High Court Affirms Maintenance Without Strict Proof of Marriage"

This judgment by the Calcutta High Court reaffirms the broader interpretation of Section 125 CrPC to ensure justice for vulnerable individuals. It serves as a reminder that courts aim to address the realities of informal marital arrangements and prioritize financial security for those in need. Practitioners should leverage this ruling to argue for fair outcomes in maintenance disputes.

Key Observations from the Judgment

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled in favor of the petitioner (wife) and reiterated that:

1. Living Together Presumes Marriage:
   When a man and a woman cohabit as husband and wife for a reasonable period, strict proof of marriage is not a prerequisite for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The wife must establish a prima facie case of marriage to invoke the provision’s benefits.

2. Purpose of Section 125:
   This provision is a remedial measure to prevent destitution and provide financial support to abandoned wives and children, ensuring they have sustenance. The objective is welfare-oriented and not bound by rigid technicalities.

3. Legal Spouse Status:
   A civil court had previously declared the petitioner as the legal wife and her child as the legitimate offspring of the respondent (husband). This civil court judgment was upheld despite an appeal being pending, as no stay had been granted.

4. Maintenance Granted:

   • The High Court directed the husband to pay ₹2,000 per month to the wife (as awarded by the Magistrate).

   • ₹3,000 per month was affirmed for the daughter as decided earlier by the Sessions Court.
     

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner had married another person earlier, but the marriage ended in divorce by mutual consent in 2005.

2. She alleged that she later married the respondent in 2006 at Kalighat Temple under Hindu rites, resulting in the birth of a daughter.

3. The respondent denied the marriage and paternity, leading to the petitioner filing for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in 2007.

4. The Magistrate had awarded maintenance to both the wife and child, but the Sessions Court set aside the wife's maintenance on the grounds of insufficient proof of marriage while enhancing maintenance for the daughter.
   

Legality of the Judgment

1. Prima Facie Proof Suffices:
   The High Court emphasized the evidentiary requirement under Section 125 CrPC is not as stringent as in matrimonial suits. Cohabitation and societal recognition as husband and wife satisfy the prima facie threshold.

2. Civil Court's Judgment Binding:
   The earlier civil court declaration of the petitioner as the respondent's wife and the child as legitimate was given significant weight. This aligned with the principle that maintenance claims should reflect societal and legal realities.

3. Appeal Pending Does Not Preclude Maintenance:
   The court clarified that unless there is a stay on the civil court’s findings, maintenance obligations must be fulfilled.

4. Child Maintenance Cannot Be Denied:
   The child’s right to maintenance was affirmed, irrespective of the disputes between the parents, aligning with the principle of protecting the welfare of minors.

Legal Notes for Lawyers and Litigants

1. Importance of Prima Facie Evidence:

   • Documents like birth certificates, photographs, or testimonies of cohabitation help establish prima facie claims.

   • Litigants should focus on gathering evidence that shows societal acknowledgment of the relationship.

2. Citing Precedents:
   Lawyers should use supportive rulings like:

   • Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011): Cohabitation presumes marriage for maintenance purposes.

   • Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse (2013): Maintenance laws are to be interpreted to advance justice and prevent destitution.

3. Avoiding Technical Defenses:
   Respondents should be prepared to provide substantial evidence when contesting claims, as reliance on mere technicalities often fails against welfare-oriented provisions.

4. Highlighting Welfare Objectives:
   Lawyers must argue the social and remedial objectives of Section 125 to counteract objections that prioritize formalities over justice.

Practical Guidance

1. For Practitioners:

   • Evidence Gathering: Collect evidence demonstrating cohabitation, shared household responsibilities, and societal acknowledgment of the relationship (e.g., photographs, joint accounts, rental agreements).

   • Framing Arguments: Stress on the remedial purpose of Section 125 CrPC and highlight socio-economic implications of denying maintenance.

2. For Litigants:

   • Petitioners (Wives): Ensure you provide sufficient prima facie evidence of living together as husband and wife. Focus on proving cohabitation and mutual acknowledgment of the relationship.

   • Respondents (Husbands): Contesting such claims requires proving the absence of cohabitation or challenging the claim with contradictory evidence, such as lack of societal recognition.

3. Legal Strategy:
   When addressing maintenance claims under Section 125, avoid overly technical defenses that may undermine the welfare intent of the provision. Highlight judicial precedents that prioritize justice over formalities.