Court Draws Adverse Inference from Respondent's Refusal to Undergo DNA Test, Overturns Lower Court Decisions
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, has overturned previous judgments and granted maintenance to Seemabai and her child, who were initially denied support on grounds of unproven marriage. The court ruled that the standard of proof of marriage in maintenance proceedings is not as stringent as in criminal trials.
The case, Seemabai v. Basantilal, centered around a maintenance application filed by Seemabai under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. She claimed to have been married to Basantilal, the respondent, for 14-15 years and sought maintenance for herself and her child. However, the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Biaora Rajgarh, and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora), initially dismissed her claims, citing lack of proof of marriage and paternity.
In the appeal, Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the standard of proof required for establishing marriage in maintenance proceedings is not as strict as in criminal cases. He referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit, which allows courts to presume a valid marriage if cohabitation as husband and wife is demonstrated.
The court took an adverse inference against Basantilal for refusing a DNA fingerprinting test, which was sought by Seemabai to establish the paternity of her child. Justice Singh stated that such refusal could be considered in deciding the maintenance claim, emphasizing that the existence of a prior marriage does not disqualify the petitioners from receiving maintenance.
Consequently, the High Court granted Seemabai and her child maintenance of Rs. 5,000 each per month from the date of the original application, April 27, 2014. The maintenance for Seemabai will continue until she remarries, and for her child until reaching adulthood.
This judgment reinforces the principle that maintenance proceedings are more lenient in terms of proof of marriage, prioritizing the welfare of women and children.
Bottom line:-
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Standard of proof of marriage is not as strict as in criminal cases - Adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent for refusing a DNA fingerprinting test to establish paternity.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Seemabai v. Basantilal, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2918718
