The Hindu : Maintenance must if husband is aware of pregnancy at the time of marriage

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 01, 2003

National

National

Maintenance must if husband is aware of pregnancy at the time of marriage

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI April 30. The Supreme Court has held that if a person marries a pregnant girl with the knowledge of her pregnancy, such a marriage cannot be said to be void or illegal and the wife will be entitled to maintenance in the event of divorce on that ground.

A Bench, comprising Justice M.B. Shah and Justice Arun Kumar, set aside a judgment of the Kerala High Court affirming a trial court's order which held that the girl had concealed the pregnancy at the time of marriage and hence it was invalid and that the husband need not pay any maintenance amount to the girl under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.

The judges said, "we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the courts below.

It is very difficult to believe that a woman who is five months pregnant will be able to conceal the pregnancy from her husband.

Such an advanced stage of pregnancy cannot be concealed as the pregnancy starts showing by that time.''

Rejecting the husband's version that he was not aware of the pregnancy at the time of marriage, the judges said "he does not raise any objection even after the marriage.

He is present at the time of delivery of the child. Presumably, he gives his own name as the name of the father of child for the official record.''

Even thereafter, for about four years "he goes along with the marriage and brings up the child while treating the appellant as his wife.

Any person who learns that his newly-married wife is already pregnant for five months and who does not accept that marriage or pregnancy will not behave in the manner in which he did.''

Amina and Hasan Koya were married on December 28, 1972. A girl child was born on April 28/May 3, 1973. Mr. Koya divorced his wife on May 2, 1977.

The wife filed a petition seeking maintenance, which was granted by the first class magistrate.

However, both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court accepted the husband's contention that the child was not born to him and held that he had no obligation to pay any maintenance.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National