Bonoshree Hazra @ Mollah v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2026

he petitioner claimed that she married the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, after allegedly converting to Islam.

The marriage was stated to have been performed according to Muslim rites and customs and registered before a Muslim Marriage Registrar and Kazi in Asansol in August 2016.

A male child was born from the relationship in January 2017.

The petitioner alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and threats by the respondent.

According to her, the respondent deserted both her and the minor child in February 2018.

The petitioner thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

The Judicial Magistrate, Asansol granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the woman and Rs. 4,000 per month to the minor child.

Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the interim maintenance order after the respondent disputed the marriage and paternity of the child.

The revisional court also questioned the validity of the alleged conversion because the petitioner continued using her Hindu name “Bonoshree Hazra.”

Aggrieved by the order denying maintenance, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court.

The Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and restored the Magistrate’s interim maintenance order.

The Court held that the revisional court wrongly treated the dispute regarding marriage as conclusively established at the interim stage.

The bench observed that the petitioner had produced a marriage certificate bearing photographs and signatures of both parties.

The Court also noted the existence of the child’s birth certificate naming the respondent as the father.

It further took note that in proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC, no dispute regarding marriage had been raised earlier by the respondent.

Relying upon the Supreme Court judgments in Chand Patel v. Bismilla Begum and Mohammed Salim v. Shamsudeen, the Court reiterated that under Hanafi Muslim law, marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is considered irregular (fasid) and not void (batil).

The bench clarified that such a marriage continues to subsist unless declared void by a competent court.

The Court held that during subsistence of such marriage, the wife and child remain entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The Court observed that merely using a Hindu name in legal proceedings cannot become a ground to deny maintenance.

The judgment emphasized that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and the standard of proof regarding marriage is not strict.

The Court held that depriving a woman and minor child of maintenance despite prima facie proof of marriage and paternity would amount to gross illegality.

Consequently, the respondent was directed to continue payment of interim maintenance in terms of the Magistrate’s order.

The judgment strongly reinforces the social justice objective behind Section 125 CrPC.

The Calcutta High Court adopted a welfare-oriented approach while protecting the rights of women and children at the interim stage.

By relying on principles of Hanafi Muslim law, the Court clarified the distinction between irregular (fasid) and void (batil) marriages.

The ruling prevents husbands from escaping maintenance obligations through technical disputes regarding validity of marriage.

The Court correctly emphasized that interim maintenance proceedings cannot become full-fledged trials on marital validity.

The judgment also highlights that identity and religious conversion cannot be assessed solely on superficial grounds such as use of a previous name.

By restoring maintenance, the Court ensured that economic vulnerability of women and children is not aggravated during prolonged litigation.

The ruling reaffirms that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution.

The decision strengthens constitutional principles of dignity, protection of women, and child welfare.

Overall, the judgment is an important precedent safeguarding maintenance rights despite pending disputes over personal law and marital validity.