Strict proof of marriage is unnecessary for maintenance where marital cohabitation is prima facie established.

The respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner/husband and had been subjected to cruelty and desertion

On 25.06.2022, the JMFC, Ganjbasoda awarded her maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month

Both parties filed criminal revisions: the husband sought to set aside the maintenance, disputing the validity of the marriage and citing his retirement and ailments; the wife sought enhancement, citing her medical expenses and the husband’s higher income

The Revisional Court dismissed both revisions on 12.04.2023, affirming the trial court’s order

Consequently, both parties approached the High Court under inherent jurisdiction

1. Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when the validity of the marriage is disputed and civil proceedings regarding the marital status are pending?

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded concurrently by two lower courts under its inherent jurisdiction?

The Court primarily applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., noting that such proceedings are summary in nature and do not require strict proof of marriage as necessitated in civil proceedings

It relied on the principle that if parties have cohabited and a prima facie relationship is established, the Court can grant maintenance

Furthermore, the Court applied the restricted scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which dictates that inherent powers should not be used as an appellate forum for re-assessing quantum unless the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity

The Court reasoned that because Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding, the trial court’s finding that the parties cohabited as husband and wife was sufficient to sustain the maintenance order, regardless of pending proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act

Regarding the husband's financial capacity, the Court observed that his retirement does not exempt him from liability as pensionary benefits remain available, and the major status of his children removes any competing legal obligation that would defeat the wife’s claim

On the issue of quantum, the Court found that the trial and revisional courts had already considered the husband's income and the wife's needs

Since no relevant material was ignored and no inadmissible evidence was relied upon, the Court held that the concurrent findings did not meet the threshold of perversity required for interference under inherent jurisdiction

It held that the respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance as a prima facie marital relationship was established

The Court further held that the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month was neither excessive nor meager enough to warrant interference

The impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, was upheld