KAMALA AND OTHERS versus M.R. MOHAN KUMAR

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 24-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
KAMALA  AND OTHERS
v.
M.R. MOHAN KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2368-2369 of 2009)
OCTOBER 24, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – Maintenance
under, claimed by wife – Standard of proof required to prove
marriage – Marriage between appellant No.1-wife (PW-1) and
respondent-husband was solemnized against the wishes of their
parents – Appellant No.2-daughter and appellant no.3-son were
born out of the wedlock – However, after some time respondent
allegedly started harassing the appellant no.1 and neglected the
children – Appellant no.1 claimed maintenance – Respondent denied
the factum of marriage – Family Court allowed the appellant’s claim
and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m to appellant No.1 and
Rs.2,500/- p.m to each of the appellants nos.2 and 3 – High Court
set aside the order holding that appellant no.1 was unable to prove
that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent – Held: Based
on the evidence of PW-1 and the birth certificates of the children
and the photos, the Family Court rightly held that appellant no.1
has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent – Unlike
matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential,
in the proceedings u/s.125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is
not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy
– Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage
when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number
of years – Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the
Family Court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court
being the Revisional Court had no power to reassess the evidence
and substitute its views on findings of fact – Appellant No.1 being
the wife and appellants no.2 and 3 being their children are entitled
to claim maintenance u/s.125 CrPC – Respondent to pay arrears of
maintenance as directed by the Family Court within two months
and also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants –
Appellants at liberty to move the Family Court for enhancement of
the maintenance.
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 505
505
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Based on the evidence of PW-1 and the number
of documents in particular, the birth certificates of the children
(Exts.P7-P8) and the photos (Exts.P1 to P3), the family court
rightly held that appellant No.1 has proved valid marriage
between her and the respondent.  It is established that appellant
No.1 and the respondent cohabitated as husband and wife and
that the people around them treated them as husband and wife
and the family court rightly held that appellant No.1 being a wife
and appellants No.2 and 3 being their children are entitled to
claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 14]
[511-G-H; 512-A-B]
1.2 Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of
marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is
summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties
live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that
they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife
under Section 125 Cr.P.C.  Applying the well-settled principles,
in the case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living
together as husband and wife and also begotten two children.
Appellant No.1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the
children appellants No.2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The law presumes in favour of marriage
and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited
continuously for a number of years. [Paras 15, 16] [512-C, E-G]
1.3  On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1 (PW-1),
birth certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts. P7-P8 dated
25.05.2001 and 06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral
evidence of  PW-2 who was co-worker of appellant No.1 and PW-
3-landlord, the family court held that appellant No.1 and the
respondent were living together as husband and wife and there
is sufficient proof of marriage. The family court rightly drew the
presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the
respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming
maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is
summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth
certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.