The Calcutta High Court, in its judgment dated 18.05.2026 delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das in CRR 1163 of 2024, allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Bonoshree Hazra @ Mollah and set aside the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman, which had reversed the order of interim maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol. The High Court restored the Magistrate’s order granting Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to her minor son, directing the opposite party to pay the amounts in accordance with the Magistrate’s direction and to expedite the hearing of the main proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, originally a Hindu lady, claimed that she had a love affair with the opposite party (a Sub-Inspector of Police) and married him according to Muslim rites and customs after converting to Islam. The marriage was registered before a Muslim Marriage Registrar and Kazi at Asansol on 12.08.2016. A male child was born out of the wedlock on 20.01.2017. The petitioner alleged that after solemnization of marriage, she was subjected to torture and threats by the opposite party, who deserted her and the child on 13.02.2018. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The opposite party disputed the marriage and paternity of the child and sought a DNA test. The Magistrate granted interim maintenance, which was set aside by the revisional court primarily on the ground that the petitioner continued to describe herself as “Bonoshree Hazra” and on the denial of marriage by the opposite party.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had produced the marriage certificate bearing signatures and photographs of both parties along with the child’s birth certificate naming the opposite party as the father. A charge-sheet had also been submitted against the opposite party in proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The Court held that prima facie proof of marriage and paternity existed, and the dispute regarding validity of marriage and conversion could only be decided after evidence and in the civil suit filed by the opposite party. Depriving the woman and minor child of interim maintenance at the preliminary stage on mere technicalities or denial by the husband amounted to gross illegality.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Chand Patel v. Bismilla Begum and Mohammed Salim v. Shamsudeen, the Court reiterated that under Hanafi Muslim law, a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman (even without valid conversion) is irregular (fasid) and not void (batil). Such an irregular marriage continues to subsist until declared void by a competent court, and during its subsistence, the wife and children are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court further referred to Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit to hold that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the standard of proof for marriage is not as strict as in a prosecution for bigamy. If the claimant shows that she and the respondent lived together as husband and wife, a presumption arises in her favour which the denying party must rebut.
The High Court held that the revisional court failed to apply judicial mind and did not consider the settled law on maintenance. Mere technicalities cannot frustrate the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a provision for social justice, especially for women and children. The order of the revisional court was set aside and the interim maintenance order of the Magistrate was restored. The opposite party was directed to comply with the payment and expedite the hearing. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Bonoshree Hazra @ Mollah v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 1163 of 2024
Court: Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: 18.05.2026
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 