Written by Mohd Shaan pursuing BA LL.B from Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology (affiliated to GGSIPU)
Introduction: –
This case revolves around a maintenance claim under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Madras High Court adjudicated with this matter, and delivered its judgement on June 26, 2023.
Background: –
The first respondent namely M. Sharon Nisha, asserted that she married the petitioner, Loyola Selva Kumar, on January 26, 2018, at his parental home in Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli. One child born out of the said wedlock on October 14, 2018. Sharon Nisha alleged that after marriage his husband and in-laws harass her to unmet dowry demands, leading her to return to her parental home for child birth. Despite informing her husband about the birth, he allegedly visited only after five days and insisted on an additional dowry of Rs. 25 lakhs as a precondition to cohabitation and to live together. In consequence of this, Nisha filed a petition seeking maintenance for the minor child and herself to under section 125 Cr.P.C.
Issues Raised: –
- Validity of Marriage: Whether the marriage between Loyola Selva Kumar and M. Sharon Nisha was legally valid, given Loyola’s existing marital status.
- Entitlement to maintenance: Whether Sharon Nisha and her child is entitled to maintenance under section 125 C.r.P.C., considering the dispute validity of the marriage?
- Quantum of maintenance: Determination of the exact value of the maintenance?
Sections Involved: –
Section 125 of C.r.P.C., 1973, this provision mandates that individual with sufficient means must provide maintenance to their wives, children and parents who are not capable to maintain themselves.
Petitioner’s Arguments: –
Denial of the marriage and paternity- Petitioner contended that no marriage was solemnized between him and Sharon Nisha and he further denied paternity of the second respondent.
He contended that he was also married to one Merlin Rosy since November 30,2011, with whom he had a child, and marriage was still subsisting.
Financial Constraints: Loyola claimed that he earned a monthly salary of Rs. 16 thousand, with a take-home pay of Rs. 11,500 after deductions, and already paying 7,000 thousand per month to his wife and child.
Respondent’s Argument: –
- Proof of marriage and Cohabitation: Sharon Nisha presented evidences, like marriage invitation, marriage photograph, child’s birth certificate, to substantiate her claim.
- Financial Capacity of Loyola: He worked as a supervisor at ATG Tyre Company where he earned Rs. 50,000/- per month and have 11 houses on his name from where he collects rental amount of Rs. 90,000/- per month.
- Neglect and Refusal to Maintain: She contended that Loyola neglected and refused to provide maintenance despite having sufficient.
Court’s Analysis: –
- Admissibility of Evidence: The court referred to Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which allows Family Courts to receive any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may assist in effectively resolving a dispute, even if such evidence might not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. This provision grants Family Courts the discretion to consider a wide range of evidence to achieve justice in matrimonial disputes.
- Validity of Marriage: The court acknowledged that Loyola’s first marriage was still subsisting, rendering his marriage to Sharon Nisha legally invalid. However, it emphasized that for the purposes of Section 125 Cr.P.C., a woman in Sharon Nisha’s position could be considered a “wife,” especially when the man has misrepresented his marital status. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014 1 SCC 188), which held that a woman who marries a man without knowledge of his previous subsisting marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- Entitlement to maintenance: Court found that Sharon Nisha and her child was entitled to maintenance. And observed that Loyola’s deliberate misrepresentation and fraudulent intent to were evident from his denial of any relationship with the petitioner. Court said that the objective of Sectio 125 C.r.P.C. is to protect women and children, and its provisions should be interpreted in a manner so that we can achieve the desired objective.
- Quantum of Maintenance: Considering the current economic situation, the status of the parties, and Loyola’s failure to provide concrete evidence of his financial constraints, Court deemed the Family Court’s award of Rs. 10,000/- per month for each respondent (Sharon Nisha and her child separately), which is reasonable and not to excessive.
Judgement: –
Court dismissed the Criminal Revision petition filed by Loyola Selva Kumar, upholding the Family Court’s decision to pay Rs. 10,000/- to both Sharon Nisha and her child separately.
Ratio Decidendi: –
Woman who enters into a marriage with a man without the knowledge of his existing subsisting marriage is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 C.r.P.C. And the term “wife” in this context includes woman who has been misled into marrying a man fraudulently conceals his previous marriage. And this interpretation is necessary to fulfill the objective of Section 125 C.r.P.C.
Conclusion: –
The case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of woman and children, specifically in situations where the woman faced fraudulent misrepresentation which leads to invalid marriage. And reaffirms that the provision of Section 125 C.r.P.C. should be interpreted in its broad sense to ensure social justice and to prevent destitution among marginalized sections of the society.
