The Calcutta High Court has ruled that strict proof of marriage is not a mandatory requirement for granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized that a woman seeking maintenance does not necessarily need to provide formal evidence of marriage, and other factors, such as cohabitation, can be considered.
Background:
In this case, the petitioner sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, but the respondent argued that the woman had not provided formal proof of marriage. The law under Section 125 CrPC is designed to provide maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves, but the issue of whether a formal marriage certificate is required has often been debated.
Court’s Rationale:
The Calcutta High Court clarified that the primary concern under Section 125 is the relationship between the parties and their ability to prove a living relationship, rather than formal documentation of marriage. The court observed that the purpose of Section 125 is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and to ensure that those who are in a dependent position receive maintenance. Hence, the court ruled that strict proof of marriage should not be a barrier in such cases.
Existing Measures:
Section 125 CrPC has been a powerful tool for women seeking maintenance, even in cases where there is no formal marriage. Courts have previously allowed maintenance based on the fact of cohabitation and the intent of the parties, rather than requiring a legal certificate.
Conclusion:
The ruling by the Calcutta High Court reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of dependent individuals, especially women, under Section 125 CrPC. It clarifies that the focus should be on the relationship and financial dependence rather than formal proof of marriage, thereby widening the scope for those seeking maintenance under this provision.
[ajax_load_more]