Maintenance proceedings cannot be quashed where the alleged marital relationship requires determination through trial.

The petitioner sought quashing of the respondent’s maintenance proceeding, F.C.(Crl.) No. 557/2024, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The respondent claimed to be the petitioner’s wife and asserted that their marriage had been solemnized according to Hindu rites. The petitioner denied any marriage or cohabitation as husband and wife.

The respondent had also initiated criminal cases and a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the petitioner.

The petitioner relied on alleged inconsistencies in the respondent’s pleadings concerning the date and place of marriage, as well as her pregnancy and childbirth, contending that the maintenance proceeding was instituted with an ulterior motive to extract money.

The respondent argued that the existence and nature of the relationship had to be determined on evidence at trial and could not be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the respondent’s pending maintenance proceeding under Section 144 BNSS on the basis of alleged contradictions regarding the marriage and relationship between the parties.

2. Whether the alleged discrepancies in the respondent’s statements regarding the date and place of marriage conclusively disprove the existence of a marital relationship or a relationship in the nature of husband and wife, thereby disentitling her from claiming maintenance without a trial.

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, read with Sections 438 and 442 BNSS, in relation to a maintenance proceeding under Section 144 BNSS.

It applied the principle that disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence should ordinarily be determined by the trial court and not in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction.

Relying on Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675, the Court held that where a claimant establishes that the parties lived together as husband and wife, the court may presume a valid marriage, subject to rebuttal by the opposing party.

The Court further held that the existence of an actual marriage, or alternatively a relationship in the nature of husband and wife relevant to the maintenance claim, must be examined through evidence at trial.

The Court acknowledged that the respondent’s differing statements concerning the date and place of marriage created some doubt regarding the factum of marriage.

However, those inconsistencies were evidentiary matters and did not conclusively establish that the maintenance proceeding was malicious or legally untenable at the threshold.

The respondent was entitled to adduce evidence concerning the marriage and the parties’ cohabitation, while the petitioner would have the opportunity to rebut that evidence and lead his own evidence.

Since the question whether the parties had lived in a relationship resembling that of husband and wife could not be resolved without a factual inquiry, the Court declined to determine the disputed facts under its inherent jurisdiction.

Whether the parties were married, or had a relationship in the nature of husband and wife sufficient to support a claim under Section 144 BNSS, was left to be determined by the Family Court after trial.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed, and the proceedings in F.C.(Crl.) No. 557/2024 were not quashed.