The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that Section 125 CrPC does not require strict proof of a ceremonial marriage to grant maintenance. Where a woman has lived with a man as his wife for a prolonged period, borne his children, and been economically dependent, the law recognizes a de facto marital relationship sufficient to trigger the obligation to maintain.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, a forest ranger, was challenged by his former partner, Smt. Meena Devi, and their two minor children under Section 125 CrPC. The respondents alleged a 25-year cohabitation under Hindu rites, resulting in two children, and claimed the applicant abandoned them after entering an illicit relationship. The applicant denied any legal marriage, asserting that Meena Devi was already married to another man and that he only provided shelter to the children out of compassion.
Procedural History
- 2019: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed by respondents before Family Court, Ambikapur
- 2023: Family Court partially allowed the application, awarding Rs. 4,000/month to Meena Devi and Rs. 3,000/month to minor daughter Mahi
- 2023: Application for maintenance rejected for son Mathura on grounds of majority
- 2023: Criminal revision filed before Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the maintenance order
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing lack of legal marriage proof, insufficient income evidence, and the respondents’ receipt of rental income from property he owned. He contended the quantum was excessive and based on flawed evidence appreciation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125 CrPC permits maintenance to be granted to a woman and her minor child based on long-term cohabitation and dependency, even in the absence of formal proof of marriage under personal law.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that Section 125 CrPC requires a legally valid marriage to invoke maintenance liability. No marriage certificate, wedding photos, or witness testimony established a ceremonial union. The applicant’s income was overstated; he had substantial loan obligations. The respondents were residing in his house and earning rental income, negating claims of destitution. The Family Court ignored evidence of the wife’s prior marriage and the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent vagrancy. The long-term cohabitation, birth of two children, and continuous financial support for over two decades established a de facto marital relationship. The applicant’s denial of marriage was contradicted by his own conduct and admission of maintaining the household. The Family Court’s findings were based on credible oral and documentary evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose of Section 125 CrPC, noting its remedial nature to ensure that dependents are not left destitute. It emphasized that the provision does not hinge on the validity of marriage under personal law but on the existence of a domestic relationship and economic dependency. The Court observed:
"The object of Section 125 is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The requirement of a legally valid marriage is not a sine qua non for invoking this provision."
The Court noted that the Family Court had considered the applicant’s admission of cohabitation, his role as father to the children, and the absence of independent income by Meena Devi. The fact that the respondents resided in the applicant’s house did not negate dependency; it reflected economic reality, not voluntary support. The Court further held that the applicant’s claim of ill-treatment was unsubstantiated and could not override the statutory duty to maintain dependents.
The quantum of maintenance was deemed reasonable in light of the applicant’s employment as a government ranger, the cost of living in Surguja, and the minor daughter’s educational needs. The rejection of the son’s claim upon attaining majority was legally sound.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC applies to de facto marital relationships where cohabitation, dependency, and parental responsibility are established, irrespective of formal marriage proof. The maintenance award of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 3,000 per month was upheld as just and proportionate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
De Facto Relationships Qualify for Maintenance
- Practitioners must now argue that long-term cohabitation, public recognition as spouses, and financial dependency are sufficient to invoke Section 125 CrPC
- Absence of a marriage certificate or registration does not automatically disqualify a claim
- Evidence of children born from the relationship strengthens the presumption of a marital relationship
Income Assessment Must Be Realistic
- Courts will not accept self-serving denials of income without supporting documents
- Government salaries, pensions, and regular earnings are presumed sufficient unless proven otherwise
- Deductions like loans must be substantiated with bank statements or repayment schedules
Residence Alone Does Not Negate Dependency
- Living in the respondent’s property does not equate to financial independence
- Maintenance is assessed on net need, not on availability of shelter
- Rental income from property must be documented to be considered in offsetting maintenance liability
