Case: KAMALA Vs. M.R.MOHAN KUMAR

2. Case of the appellants is that marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 18.07.1998 against the wishes of their parents at Karrighatta temple near Sri Rangapattana and appellantson were born out of the wedlock on 09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003 respectively and they lived in a house on rent in Saraswasthipuram, Mysore. Further case of the appellants is that while the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent was subsisting, the respondent married one Archana, who was his colleague on 01.04.2005, after which the appellants were neglected by the respondent and he was harassing appellant No.1. Being aggrieved of such treatment from respondent, appellant No.1 filed a police complaint and upon the direction of police, the respondent was paying Rs.3,000/per month to the appellants towards their maintenance. It is further averred that when they shifted from Saraswathipuram to Chamundipuram, the respondent continued to neglect them. Since appellant No.1 could not maintain herself and her children, she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.297/2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and the children from the respondent.The respondent resisted the maintenance claim contending that he has never married appellant No.1 and denied her contention that appellants No.2 and 3 were born out to him and appellant No.1. The respondent contended that when there is no valid marriage between the parties, petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be maintained.Upon consideration of evidence, the family court held that appellant No.1 has proved that there isrelationship between appellant No.1 and respondent and that appellants No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock and that the respondent was giving her a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month. The family court further held that the case of the appellants is supported by the evidence ofwhich clearly establish that they lived under the same roof and the society also accepted them as husband and wife. On those findings, the family court vide its order dated 12.08.2008 allowed the appellant?s claim and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month to appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/per month to each of the appellants No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008. From the date of judgment i.e. 12.08.2008, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month each to appellants No.1 to 3.In appeal, the High Court has set aside the order of the family court and held that appellant No.1 was unable to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The High Court further held that she has not produced any evidence to show that the marriage was solemnized as per custom and she, not being the legally wedded wife, is not entitled for any maintenance.

Court's reasoning:
14. Based on the evidence ofand the number of documents in particular, the birth certificates of the childrenand the photos (Exts.P1 to P3), the family court rightly held that appellant No.1 has proved valid marriage between her and the respondent. From the evidence of3, it is established that appellant No.1 and the respondent were 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.It is fairly well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.In Chanmuniya case, this Court formulated three questions and referred the matter to the larger Bench. However, after discussing various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court held that a broad and extensive interpretation should be given to the term ?wife? under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held as under:42. 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 fulfil 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.?On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1birth certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts.dated 25.05.2001 and 06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral evidence ofker of appellant No.1 andthe 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 ofcoupled with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly establish the factum of marriage.Based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary. The findings recorded by the family court as to the existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.