Women who lived like a wife cannot be denied of maintenance – HC Tripura

Pranjal Sharma | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 11th July 2020

SRI BIBHUTI RANJAN DAS V/s SMT. GOURI DAS

FACTS

1. The current proceeding was initiated by the respondent as the petitioner had stopped maintaining her from 2013 and had claimed that the respondent is not his wife thus questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 by the Judge, Family Court of West Tripura Agartala.
2. According to the judgment the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent under Section 125 of the CrPC.
3. The petitioners was also legally married wife is one Sabitri Das whom he married as per Hindu Rites and Customs in 1993 and from the said wedlock, the petitioner has two daughters, the petitioner and one Sabitri Das, due to differences have been living separately and the petitioner has been providing them currently with a maintenance of Rs. 3000.
4. According to the materials of evidence placed in the records it appeared to the court that the respondent has claimed that the petitioner married her in 2003 according to their own rites and rituals in presence of relatives guardian and other local people and that the said marriage was duly consummated.
5. In the year 2013, the petitioner was transferred to Udaipur in the Regional Office of Rubber Board from Agartala, the petitioner had allegedly started behaving differently with the respondent and then later had broken all communications with her.
6. Respondent tried to resolve the marital distance by conciliation with aid of the guardians, but that initiative did fail.
7. As the respondent was unable to maintain herself, she filed the said application under Section 125 of the CRPC claiming monthly maintenance to the extent of Rs.12000.
8. To this the petitioner in the court stated that when his wife Smt Sabitri Das started living separately, the petitioner alone had been living in his house but when he was transferred to Udaipur in July, 2012, he left Agartala keeping his home at Chanmari, Agartala under lock and key but in the middle of 2013, taking opportunity of his absence, with the help of some hooligans, the respondent occupied the homestead of the petitioner at Chanmari and breaking the locks started living in his home. Getting information from the well-wishers, the petitioner came but could not enter his homestead due to dreadful obstruction and attempt to attack the petitioner by the respondent and her hooligan troops. The petitioner stated that the respondent demanded that it was her house and if the Petitioner wanted to say anything, they would kill him.
9. The respondent also contended that even if what petitioner stated was true, the petitioner was married to Sabitri Das at the time of the alleged marriage with the respondent, the marriage with the respondent is not legal.
10. The respected judge Family Court by order dated 17.06.2019 after Having recorded the evidence, held that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been proved by those evidence, even though the petitioner had his ex-spouse living at the relevant point of time. The hon’ble Family Court Agartala had also observed that the respondent cannot be permitted to deny the maintenance taking advantage of his own wrong and so the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.4000 per month

JUDGEMENT

The hon’ble court considering the precedent of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr[1] stated that if the petitioner in a proceeding under section 125 of succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court is to presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption.

In the Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr[2] the apex court emphasized that when a person who is married had duped the woman by not revealing the fact of his first marriage then the woman, who married the man having no knowledge of the first marriage is to be treated as equal to legally wed-wife for purpose of granting maintenance.

The hon’ble MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA stated that “a woman who lived like a wife and in the perception she was treated as the wife cannot be deprived of the maintenance. For this purpose a co-terminus provision for granting maintenance may be looked into and a uniformity in the definition may be brought in.”

As the respondent had stated that she was not aware that the petitioner was married but they have lived for more than ten years as husband and wife after a ritual on the day of Dol Purnima. Which on the face of such prima facie material, the burden was on the petitioner to disprove such element, but he has failed to do so.

The hon’ble judge held that no infirmity was found in the observation of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura and the revision petition fails and accordingly the same was dismissed and the petitioner shall pay the maintenance in terms of the said order dated 17.06.2019. Failure in making payment shall be dealt with sternly.

---

[1] (1999) 7 SCC 675

[2] AIR 2014 SC 869