A marriage that began with a friendship on Facebook and culminated in an interfaith wedding under the Special Marriage Act has resulted in prolonged litigation. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a maintenance award in favor of the wife, dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband.
Court Ruling
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha on May 15 affirmed a family court order directing the husband to pay Rs 12,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, Lovely Sagar. The court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the family court's assessment.
Background of the Marriage
The couple connected through Facebook, where their acquaintance developed into a friendship and later a relationship. With family consent, they solemnized their interfaith marriage in October 2020 under the Special Marriage Act. The wife is a Christian, and the husband belongs to the Jain community.
Marital Discord
The relationship soon encountered difficulties. The wife alleged that she was assured the husband, working in Bengaluru, would arrange separate accommodation and take her there after marriage. She later claimed she was pressured by her husband and his family to adopt Jain religious customs and practices, leading to discord. The husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage.
Maintenance Claim
During the matrimonial dispute, the wife sought maintenance from the family court, stating she had no independent means to support herself. The husband argued that she was educated, had worked before marriage, and was capable of self-support. He also claimed she voluntarily stayed away from the matrimonial home despite his efforts.
High Court Observations
The High Court noted that the family court found no convincing evidence that the wife was earning or financially self-sufficient. The husband failed to substantiate his claim of sincere efforts to restore matrimonial life. The family court considered the husband's employment as an engineer in Bengaluru with a monthly income of about Rs 84,000 and held that the wife was unable to maintain herself and was residing separately for sufficient cause.
Evidence Rejection
The High Court endorsed the family court's rejection of electronic evidence submitted by the husband via a pen drive, as it was not proved in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court reiterated that allegations regarding a spouse's earning capacity must be backed by concrete evidence before maintenance can be denied.
