The Patna High Court held that a levirate marriage validated by custom, cohabitation, and social acceptance is legally valid under Section 125 CrPC. The Court emphasized that denying maintenance on technical grounds undermines women’s dignity and children’s welfare.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: In a landmark ruling reaffirming the protective and inclusive intent of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the Patna High Court has recognized the legal validity of a customary levirate marriage to grant maintenance.
This decision reiterates that the law cannot turn a blind eye to long-standing societal practices, particularly when the rights and dignity of women and children are at stake.
Background
The case involved a woman who filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance for herself and her two minor sons.
The wife claimed she married the man in 2010 and had two sons from the union. However, he abandoned her six years ago, forcing her to depend on her elderly and ailing father. She filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The husband argued that she was his brother’s widow and that their marriage was void under Hindu law due to being within prohibited degrees of relationship.
In response, the wife asserted that their marriage followed an accepted community custom allowing a widow to marry her deceased husband’s younger brother.
Court’s Observation
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, while delivering the judgment, held that,
“The marriage, being validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as valid in law for Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
The Court emphasized,
“The Hindu Marriage Act, under Section 5(iv), clearly allows for a valid marriage within prohibited degrees if backed by custom. In the present case, such a custom has not only been pleaded but is evident in practice, acknowledgment by the family, cohabitation, and parenthood. The denial of the wife’s status in this context is an unjust act disguised as a legal technicality, and if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent where a woman who has fulfilled the role of a wife and mother is discarded without remedy, solely due to patriarchal convenience.”
The Court held that since the petitioner lived as a wife, had children, and was later abandoned, she is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The technical argument of an invalid marriage cannot be used to deny her support.
The Court held that the petitioner’s situation falls within the protective scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as she was deserted and left without support after cohabiting as a wife and bearing children.
“The existence of children born out of the union further strengthens the presumption of valid marriage, or at minimum, a relationship akin to marriage, entitling the petitioner to maintenance.”
Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed, and the petitioner was deemed eligible for maintenance.
Levirate marriage
Levirate marriage is a customary practice where a man marries the widow of his deceased brother to continue the family lineage.
Historically, this tradition has been observed among several Indian tribes, such as the Santhal and Munda.
A similar practice called niyoga existed during the Vedic period, allowing a younger brother or male relative to marry a widow, though it was later discouraged during the Gupta era. In contrast, sororate refers to the custom where a man marries his deceased wife’s sister.
Section 125 of CrPC
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides a legal remedy for wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. A wife abandoned by her husband can claim monthly maintenance, provided she is not living in adultery or living separately without a valid reason. Even in cases of mutual separation, she may not be entitled to maintenance. The court must assess both the husband’s financial capacity and the wife’s need for support.
The provision also allows for interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings. A Magistrate may revise the maintenance amount if circumstances change. As clarified in Vikas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, maintenance petitions can be filed where the husband resides, where the wife resides, or where they last cohabited.
The core aim of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as emphasized in K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy, is to serve a social purpose, ensuring that women, children, and elderly parents are not left deprived. Maintenance is seen as a form of social justice, recognizing a man’s moral and legal duty to support dependents.
Case Title: Sangeeta Devi V. Pawan Kumar Singh
CRIMINAL REVISION No.678 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
