G v. B, 2026

The respondent woman had been working at the petitioner's garment shop since 2008.

According to the respondent, the petitioner was already married to Shipra Saha.

She alleged that the petitioner represented to her that his earlier marriage had ended in divorce.

Relying upon that representation, she claimed that she married the petitioner at Kalighat Temple, Kolkata, in November 2012.

The respondent stated that thereafter the parties lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period.

She alleged that the petitioner subsequently deserted her in 2022.

She thereafter instituted proceedings seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

During the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the Family Court granted her interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.

The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order before the Tripura High Court.

The petitioner denied having married the respondent at Kalighat Temple in 2012.

He did not, however, produce a marriage certificate or independent evidence supporting his denial.

The High Court noted that the petitioner admitted travelling with the respondent and did not dispute the photographs relied upon by her.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had spent approximately ₹20 lakh towards the education of the respondent's son.

The respondent relied upon these circumstances to contend that the parties had maintained a marital relationship for a substantial period.

The High Court noted that the ultimate question concerning the validity or existence of the alleged marriage remained pending before the Family Court.

Consequently, the High Court confined its consideration to whether the interim maintenance order suffered from any legal or factual infirmity.

At the interim stage, the Court found prima facie material indicating that the parties had lived together as husband and wife and that the petitioner had allegedly represented that his earlier marital relationship had ended.

The Tripura High Court rejected the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner.

The Court upheld the Family Court's order granting the respondent ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance.

The Court clarified that the question concerning the existence and validity of the alleged marriage between the parties was still pending before the Family Court.

The High Court therefore did not make any final determination regarding the marital status of the parties.

The Court considered the circumstances only for the limited purpose of examining the interim maintenance order.

The Court noted that the parties had prima facie maintained a relationship for a considerable period.

The material indicated that they had lived together and conducted themselves as husband and wife.

The petitioner had travelled with the respondent and photographs concerning their relationship were placed before the Court.

The Court also took note of the petitioner's expenditure of approximately ₹20 lakh towards the education of the respondent's son.

Although the petitioner denied marrying the respondent at Kalighat Temple, he did not produce a marriage certificate or independent material substantiating his denial.

The Court observed prima facie that the petitioner had represented to the respondent that his relationship with his first wife had ended in divorce.

On the material available at that stage, the Court observed that the petitioner had “duped the respondent by suppressing” his relationship with his first wife.

The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court's decision to grant interim maintenance.

The High Court directed the Family Court to dispose of the main proceeding at the earliest.

It further clarified that the Family Court should decide the main proceeding uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in the revision.

The revision petition was consequently dismissed.

The Tripura High Court rejected the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner.

The Court upheld the Family Court's order granting the respondent ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance.

The Court clarified that the question concerning the existence and validity of the alleged marriage between the parties was still pending before the Family Court.

The High Court therefore did not make any final determination regarding the marital status of the parties.

The Court considered the circumstances only for the limited purpose of examining the interim maintenance order.

The Court noted that the parties had prima facie maintained a relationship for a considerable period.

The material indicated that they had lived together and conducted themselves as husband and wife.

The petitioner had travelled with the respondent and photographs concerning their relationship were placed before the Court.

The Court also took note of the petitioner's expenditure of approximately ₹20 lakh towards the education of the respondent's son.

Although the petitioner denied marrying the respondent at Kalighat Temple, he did not produce a marriage certificate or independent material substantiating his denial.

The Court observed prima facie that the petitioner had represented to the respondent that his relationship with his first wife had ended in divorce.

On the material available at that stage, the Court observed that the petitioner had “duped the respondent by suppressing” his relationship with his first wife.

The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court's decision to grant interim maintenance.

The High Court directed the Family Court to dispose of the main proceeding at the earliest.

It further clarified that the Family Court should decide the main proceeding uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in the revision.

The revision petition was consequently dismissed.

Interim versus final determination: The most important aspect of the judgment is the distinction between a prima facie finding at the interim stage and a final adjudication. The High Court expressly avoided deciding whether the alleged marriage was legally valid or conclusively established.

Purpose of interim maintenance: Interim maintenance is intended to provide financial support during the pendency of proceedings. The Court therefore examined whether there was sufficient material at the preliminary stage to justify continuing the Family Court's order.

Prima facie marital relationship: The Court considered the parties' long period of cohabitation and their conduct as relevant circumstances. Their relationship was not assessed solely on the basis of the disputed marriage ceremony.

Suppression of existing relationship: The allegation that the petitioner represented himself as divorced while allegedly remaining in a relationship with his first wife was significant to the Court's prima facie assessment. The Court described the petitioner as having “duped” the respondent, but this observation was expressly made in the context of the interim stage.

Absence of documentary proof: The petitioner disputed the alleged marriage but did not produce a marriage certificate or independent evidence supporting his version. The Court considered this circumstance while deciding whether the Family Court's interim order required interference.

Conduct of the parties: The Court considered evidence of the parties' conduct, including travelling together, photographs and the petitioner's substantial financial contribution towards the respondent's son's education. These circumstances supported the prima facie finding that the relationship was maintained over a considerable period.

Limited scope of revision: The High Court did not undertake a final reappreciation of the entire matrimonial dispute. Its inquiry was confined to whether the Family Court had committed an error warranting interference with the interim maintenance order.

No prejudice to final proceedings: The Court specifically directed that the Family Court should decide the main proceeding independently and without being influenced by the High Court's observations. This preserves the parties' opportunity to establish their respective cases through evidence.

Legal significance: The decision illustrates that, at the interim stage of maintenance proceedings, courts may consider the overall conduct and circumstances of the parties while determining whether interim financial support should continue, even where the ultimate question of marital status remains unresolved.

Scope of the ruling: The judgment should not be understood as finally declaring that the parties were legally married. The High Court's conclusion was limited to finding that the Family Court's interim maintenance order did not suffer from an infirmity warranting interference.