The Gauhati High Court has declined to quash maintenance proceedings despite inconsistencies concerning the date and location of the alleged marriage.
The applicant denied that the claimant was his wife and relied on contradictory accounts given in different proceedings. The court acknowledged that those discrepancies created doubt, but held that they could not be conclusively resolved through summary pre-trial intervention.
For maintenance purposes, the inquiry may extend beyond proof of a formally valid marriage to whether the parties shared a relationship resembling that of husband and wife. That determination requires testimony and supporting evidence.
The ruling does not establish entitlement to maintenance. It preserves the claimant’s opportunity to prove the relationship while allowing the respondent to challenge her account at trial.
