There is plethora of judgments related to alimony and maintenance that are being made in accordance with various laws. The terms 'maintenance' and 'alimony' in legal context means providing the financial support to a spouse, parent, or child, so that they can sustain or maintain themselves. The maintenance can be provided in two ways the first is the interim maintenance and another is the permanent maintenance.

The maintenance can be claimed under various personal laws such as the Hindu Law or the Parsi Law each of them has their own regulations governing the provision of maintenance. Along with this Section 125 of CrPC also provides for the "Order for maintenance to the wife, child, and parents."[1] But it is pertinent to note that the husband is not entitled to claim maintenance within this Section.

The case of Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar[2] is the one that is related to the concept of 'Maintenance' under 'Section 125 of CrPC'. Herein the Supreme Court has given the 'broad and expansive interpretation' to the term 'Wife' under section 125 of CrPC for the purpose of Maintenance, and said that such interpretation is just the application of principles enriched in the preamble of the constitution such as the social justice and upholding the dignity of individual. Along with this the court has also resolved the issue as to whether it is essential to establish the strict proof of marriage for claiming the maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Facts in Brief
The appellants claim that they got married against their parents wishes on July 18, 1998, at Karrighatta temple near Sri Rangapattana. They had two children, a daughter on May 9, 2001, and a son on July 18, 2003. They lived in a rented house in Saraswasthipuram, Mysore. However, the husband married another woman named Archana on April 1, 2005, neglecting the appellants and causing harassment to the wife. As a result, the wife filed a police complaint, and the police directed the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month for their maintenance.

When they moved to Chamundipuram, the husband continued to neglect them. Due to her inability to support herself and her children, the wife filed a case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to claim maintenance. The husband disputed the maintenance claim, denying that he was ever married to the wife and refuting that the two children were his. He argued that without a valid marriage, a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC. is not justified.

After reviewing the evidence, the family court found that there was indeed a husband-wife relationship between the wife and the husband and that the two children were born to them. The court also noted that the husband had been providing a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000. They further found supporting evidence from witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) and the social acceptance of their relationship. Consequently, the family court granted the wife's claim, ordering Rs. 3,000 per month for her and Rs. 2,500 per month for each child, starting from the date of the petition until August 12, 2008. From that date onwards, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 2,500 per month to each of the appellants.

However, the revision was filed by the respondent, the High Court, on appeal, overturned the family court's decision, ruling that the wife failed to prove that she was legally married to the respondent. The High Court concluded that she had not presented any evidence to establish a valid custom marriage, and since she was not legally wedded, she was not entitled to maintenance. Thereafter the decision of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues of the Case:

1. Whether the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was valid or not?
2. What is the gravity of proof of marriage in case of 'Section 125 CrPC'?

Contentions of the Parties
Appellant's Contention

1. The counsel for the appellants had submitted that a presumption is created in favour of the party who claims that there is a valid marriage when the parties live together as a husband and wife under one roof.
2. In the instant case the respondent failed to refute the presumption that the parties got married in the temple, and lived together, and had begotten two children and hence the presumption arises in the favour of appellant.
3. The family court after examining the evidence submitted, has recorded a finding of fact stating that appellant is the respondent's legally wedded wife and that their children were born out of their marriage.

Respondent's Contention

1. On the contrary the counsel for respondent, argued that under Section 125 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, only a 'wife' who is a legally wedded wife can file an application for the maintenance.
2. It was argued that since the respondent and appellant were not legally married, the appellant is ineligible to make a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. It was also submitted that the evidence on record does not show that the parties were married, making the claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC unmaintainable and hence the High Court has rightly reversed the Judgment of the Family Court ordering maintenance.
4. For supporting their contention the counsel for the respondent has placed the reliance upon the judgment of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another.[3]

Strict Proof of Marriage:
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the "Order for maintenance to the wife, child, and parents." And for the purpose of Section 125 of CrPC the 'strict proof of marriage' is not required as it was the case in the matrimonial proceedings, because this section is summary in nature which meant to prevent vagrancy. There are several judgments that were referred in the present case that deals with the aspect of "Strict proof of marriage" and with respect to the presumption of marriage in certain circumstances.

• Firstly, in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit[4] apex Court 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. The learned Judges explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in 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 learned Judges held that maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions of living together could be reached.
   
• The principle of the above cited judgment was also upheld in the case Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy[5] in which "the Privy Council laid down the general proposition that where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless, the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage.
   
• Furthermore, in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation[6] the Supreme Court held that "a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin.
   
• Then In Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie[7] it was held that "where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage.
   
• Again in case of Tulsa v. Durghatiya[8] this Court held "that where the partners lived together for a long spell as husband and wife, a presumption would arise in favour of a valid wedlock.

Hence, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the long-standing legal principle that, in contrast to other matrimonial proceedings, a 'Strict proof of Marriage' is not required in order to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Where the parties were living together as husband and wife there is presumption that they are legally wedded couple for claim of maintenance of 'Wife' under section 125 of CrPC. Additionally, the presumption that a couple is legally married when they live together as the husband and wife applies to maintenance claims made under Section 125 CrPC.

Interpretation of term 'Wife'
The interpretation of the term 'Wife' in section 125 of CrPC has been subject to divergent judicial opinions. Some of the judgments were being referred by the apex court in the present case:

• In the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav[9] where "a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that an attempt to exclude altogether personal law of the parties in proceedings under Section 125 is improper. The learned Judges also held that the expression "wife" in Section 125 of the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife."
   
• Again case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat[10] the apex Court held that "however desirable it may be to take note of plight of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of "wife". The Bench held that this inadequacy in law can be amended only by the legislature. While coming to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judges relied on the decision in Yamunabai case."
   
• In the case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha[11] the court has taken a broad view of the definition of "wife" and here the court has held that:
  "We are of the opinion 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 fulfill the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual."

Judgment:
After listening the contentions from both the sides and referring to various judicial precedents the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment delivered by Justice R Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee has upheld the decision of family court, which held that "there was sufficient a proof of marriage and that the respondent and the appellant were living together as husband and wife and the family court has also correctly drawn the presumption of a valid marriage between the parties and they are legally married couple for claiming maintenance by 'Wife' under Section 125 of CrPC." The evidences put forth by the appellant clearly established the factum of marriage between the parties.

On the basis of both oral and documentary evidence, the family court held that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent are valid, and the high court being the revisional court has no authority to re-evaluate the evidence and replace its views of the finding of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that the strict proof of marriage is not required in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court ought not to have intervened with the family court's decision about the validity of the marriage.

As a result the Apex Court in its decision has set aside the high court's decision and allowed the appeals. Also the court directed that "the respondent must pay the arrears of maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family court, Mysore, within two months." And additionally the respondent must continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family court on or before 10th of every English calendar month. The appellants are free to go the family court for the enhancement of maintenance.

Analysis of the Judgment:
In the analysis it is submitted that the given case of Kamala vs M R Mohan mainly revolved around the central issues of determining the validity of marriage between Kamala (appellant) and M. R. Mohan (respondent) and whether Kamala was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code CrPC. In the present case while deciding the matter the apex court had meticulously applied the principle of 'Presumption of Marriage' and had taken the reference of the other judgments and had also dealt with the interpretation of the term "Wife" under Section 125 of CrPC where it had looked at various cases where the term 'Wife' has been interpreted.

In the given judgment while determining the proof of marriage the court is of the opinion that the 'strict proof of valid marriage' is not necessary for claiming maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, the court had invoked the principle of 'presumption of marriage' and held that "When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 CrPC."

And to back this opinion the court has put reliance on various judgments that supports the same, one of judgment is of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit[12] wherein it was stated that "Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy."

Along with this the judgment also reinforced the importance of a broad and inclusive interpretation of the term "wife" in cases of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC that aims to protect the rights of women in de facto marriages. The court had emphasized on the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha[13] wherein "the court had given the broad interpretation to the definition of "wife" that includes man and woman lives together as husband and wife for a reasonable period of time."

Overall looking at this present case here the court had very well interpreted section 125 of CrPC which talks about the maintenance, while taking into account the modern circumstances herein the court has put a greater emphasize on upholding the women's right and to protect them from the unfortunate situation that arises when husband usually left the wife due to any reason and it becomes even more worse when the wife does not have any means to maintain herself.

Along with that the court have also done a commendable job while observing that the strict proof of marriage is not required for claiming the maintenance under 'Section 125 of CrPC' as this will restrain the husband from taking the advantage of legal loopholes by de facto marriage without undertaking their duties and obligation. Further the broad interpretation given by the court for the term 'wife' will also help the woman to claim the remedy of maintenance without many obstacles.

Conclusion
In the conclusion it is submitted that the Supreme Court, in its judgment, had emphasized that in proceedings under 'Section 125 of the CrPC' the "Strict proof of Marriage" is not necessary, and a broad interpretation should be given to the term "wife" to include cases where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a reasonable period.

The Apex Court in this case had upheld the family court's findings and allowed the appeals, ordering the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance and continue with monthly maintenance payments to the appellants. This decision reinforces the principle that in maintenance cases, the law presumes in favor of marriage when parties have lived together as husband and wife for an extended period. The decision also underscores the importance of preventing vagrancy and destitution for women in such cases.

References:

• Section 125 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019) 11 SCC 491
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (1988) 1 SCC 530
• Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675
• Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185
• Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation (1978) 3 SCC 527
• Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881) 6 AC 364
• Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530
• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636
• Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141
• Supra @4
• Supra@11

Written By: Atharva Shukla - 2nd Year Law Student At Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur