Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing petitioner’s prayer for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul),* J., despite the petitioner’s efforts to present documentary evidence, held that the declarations in official records are not sufficient to establish the timeline of lawful marriage, leading to the dismissal of petitioner’s maintenance claim.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a revision against an order dated 22-04-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing her prayer for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the opposite part 1 and sought maintenance alleging desertion by him. The petitioner asserted that she married the opposite part 1 on 12-05-2001 and bore two children from the marriage, both of whom unfortunately passed away. She further alleged that the opposite part 1 deserted her and started living with another woman. The petitioner contended that despite producing various documents supporting her claims, including school records, railway records, and birth certificates of the deceased children, the trial court and the revisional court dismissed her claim for maintenance. The opposite part 1, on the other hand, denied marrying the petitioner and asserted that she was his widowed sister-in-law. The opposite part 1 claimed that he had never married her but had taken responsibility for her minor son as his uncle out of humanitarian grounds.
The Court noted that while official documents, including school records, railway records, referred the petitioner as opposite part 1’s wife, there are no documentation prior to the year 2000, suggesting that the petitioner might be the second wife of the opposite part 1. The Court also noted that official records presented by the opposite part 1 indicated his marriage with opposite part 2 in the year 2000. The Court concluded that the petitioner, if married to the opposite party 1, would be his second wife, rendering the marriage invalid and unlawful. Despite petitioner’s presentation of several documents indicating her marriage to opposite part 1 and official documents mentioning her as his wife, the Court found insufficient evidence to prove the marriage. The Court noted that “in spite of all these documents being prima facie in favour of the petitioner, there is no proof of marriage. The documents mentioning the petitioner as the wife are mere declarations, subject to proof, if challenged.”
The Court held that there is no lawful marriage between petitioner and opposite part 1, and thus she was not entitled to maintenance. The Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the trial court’s decision to deny her maintenance claim. All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim orders were vacated.
[Anju Sharma v. Binod Kumar Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2085, order dated 01-03-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam, Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rabi Shankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay, Ms. Payel Shome, Mr. Soumen Bandopadhyay, Mr. Kaustav Sen, Counsel for the Opposite Party 1
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
