Landmark Judgment in Proof of Marriage for Claim of Maintenance Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Oct 07, 2019, at ,05:34 PM Title of the Case – Strict Proof of Marriage in Section 125 CrPC Name of the case – Kamala & ors vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar., Crl.A. Nos. 2368-2369 of 2009 Date of Judgment – 24th October, 2018 Judges: Justice R. Banumathi & Justice Indira Banerjee Subject and sections involved – Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Issue: What is the gravity of proof of marriage in case of section 125 CrPC? Fact of the Case: The marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized in 1998 against the wishes of their parents. Two child were born out of their wedlock. The case before the case is that while marriage between appellant and respondent was subsisting, the respondent married one Archana, who was his colleague, after which the appellants were neglected by the respondent and he was harassing appellant. Being aggrieved of such treatment from respondent, appellant filed a police complaint and upon the direction of police, the respondent was paying 3 thousands per month to the appellants towards their maintenance. Click Here to Learn Advance Legal Drafting by Advocates of Supreme Court Ratio of the case - The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that unlike other matrimonial proceedings, a strict proof of marriage is not essential in claim of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and that when the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in view of the evidence and material available on record allowed the appeal holding that there was a valid marriage between the parties and moreover a strict proof of marriage was not a pre-requisite for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The other observations made by the Apex Court in the case are as under: The Supreme Court also made reference to it’s judgment in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, wherein it was held that the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. It was also noted in the case that an application under Section 125 does not really determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain maintenance. The apex Court in the case also remarked that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. Click Here to Get Into Legal World Magazine