K. VIMALA versus K. VEERASWAMY

K. VIMALA versus K. VEERASWAMY

To deny maintenance under Section 125, CrPC, for lack of legal status as wife based on subsistence of a prior marriage, the husband must strictly prove the earlier marriage was valid and subsisting at the time of the second marriage. In this case, the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof; insurance and identity card entries alone are insufficient evidence.

Parties
Appellant: K. Vimala; Respondent: K. Veeraswamy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 March 1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Proof of Marriage, Second Marriage Validity
Criminal Law Family Law Maintenance Proof of Marriage Second Marriage Validity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Vimala

Appellant

K. Veeraswamy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against High Court Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a legally wedded wife when respondent pleads his earlier marriage subsisted.
  2. 2 Whether insurance nomination and identity card entries are sufficient proof of subsistence of an earlier marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

To deny maintenance under Section 125, CrPC, for lack of legal status as wife based on subsistence of a prior marriage, the husband must strictly prove the earlier marriage was valid and subsisting at the time of the second marriage. In this case, the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof; insurance and identity card entries alone are insufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of High Court is set aside
  • Order of Magistrate awarding Rs.400 per month maintenance to the appellant is restored