The Kerala High Court clarified in a family law matter that the legal presumption of a valid remarriage between a Muslim man and his former wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises only when the intervening marriage of the woman has been conclusively proved to have been contracted and lawfully dissolved. The case before the Court involved a Muslim husband challenging a Family Court’s award of maintenance to his first wife on the basis that she had allegedly remarried him after dissolving her second marriage, and that therefore she was entitled to maintenance as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC. In the proceedings, the petitioner contended that the respondent had failed to prove the essential elements of her alleged remarriage to him after her second marriage to another man. The Family Court had allowed the maintenance claim at a monthly rate of six thousand rupees, accepting the woman’s claim that she was legally remarried to the petitioner. The husband filed a revision before the High Court, asserting that the respondent had neither demonstrated the lawful dissolution of her intervening marriage nor shown that a valid remarriage between them had taken place according to Muslim personal law requirements.
The High Court analysed the applicable principles under Muslim personal law and the statutory presumption of marriage arising under Section 125 CrPC. It observed that while the law permits a presumption of valid marriage from prolonged cohabitation between a man and a woman, this presumption is rebuttable and is subject to legal impediments such as a subsisting marriage. The Court reiterated that under Muslim law, a divorced woman who wishes to remarry her former husband cannot do so directly after divorce; instead, she must first enter into another marriage, the intervening marriage must be consummated, and then that intervening marriage must be lawfully dissolved before she can legally remarry the first husband. This doctrine, often referred to in Islamic jurisprudence as the requirement of a valid intervening marriage for remarriage to an ex-husband, underpins the legal framework in such situations. Based on the evidence on record, the High Court found that the dissolution of the respondent’s intervening marriage had not been clearly proved before the Family Court. The respondent had mentioned in her affidavit that she had entered into another marriage after her first divorce, but she had not established the legal termination of that intervening marriage or provided proof of a subsequent valid remarriage with the petitioner. Consequently, the evidence did not satisfy the legal prerequisites for presuming a valid remarriage for the purposes of conferring the status of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court also addressed the doctrine of presumption arising from long and continuous cohabitation, noting that while such cohabitation can give rise to a presumption of valid marriage, this presumption cannot override an insurmountable legal obstacle such as a subsisting marriage that has not been lawfully dissolved. In other words, even if two individuals have cohabited for a long period, they cannot be treated as legally married if there is a demonstrable legal impediment to such marriage. Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the High Court held that until the respondent proved both the lawful dissolution of her second marriage and the existence of a valid remarriage with the petitioner in accordance with Muslim personal law, no legally recognised marital relationship could be presumed for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC. Therefore, the presumption of valid marriage could not be invoked in her favour.
Despite these findings, the High Court recognised that the respondent should be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to establish the missing elements regarding the dissolution of her second marriage and the existence of a valid remarriage with the petitioner. Accordingly, while setting aside the Family Court’s maintenance order on the basis of the lack of proof, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The High Court directed that the Family Court should allow both parties to present further evidence and adjudicate the maintenance claim on the basis of a full evidentiary record, including proof of the intervening marriage’s lawful dissolution and any valid remarriage.
The High Court’s decision emphasised that the interplay between Muslim personal law requirements and the statutory framework for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be carefully examined in each case. It underscored that the statutory presumption of marriage due to cohabitation cannot supplant clear legal requirements that govern the validity of remarriage under personal law. By remanding the case with directions to permit additional evidence, the High Court ensured that the factual matrix would be fully explored in the Family Court before a determination is made on entitlement to maintenance. The judgment provides clarity on how courts should approach claims of remarriage and maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where Muslim personal law considerations regarding intervening marriage and its dissolution are in issue, reinforcing that legal validity of remarriage must be established before presumption of marital status can arise for maintenance claims.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.