Court : The Supreme Court Of India
Citation : Reference: Slp (Civil) No.15071 Of 2009)
Judgement Summary: Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha And Another
Date Of Judgement: 7 October, 2010
Judges: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly
Parties: Chanmuniya ( Appellant) Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Another (Respondent)

Facts Of The Case:

• Sarju Singh Kushwaha had two sons. Ram Saran was the elder son, and Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha was the younger one. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha was also Respondent No. 1 in this case.
• The Appellant- Chanmuniya was married to Ram Saran. Their first daughter Asha was born in 1988, and their second daughter Usha was born in 1990. Ram Saran died on 07/03/1992.
• The Kushwaha community had an alleged custom wherein, after the husband's death, the widow was married off to the younger brother of the dead husband. It was called Katha and Sindur.
• The Appellant contended that in line with this custom, she was married off to Respondent No. 1 in 1996.
• The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 and the Appellant started living together as husband and wife. They discharged all marital obligations towards each other.
• The Appellant further contended that after some time, Respondent No. 1 started torturing and harassing her, stopped her maintenance and also refused to discharge his marital obligations towards her.
• Therefore, she initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. for maintenance (No.20/1997) before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Mohamadabad, Ghazipur. The said proceedings were still pending.
• The Appellant also filed a suit (No.42/1998) in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ghazipur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights.
• The Trial Court directed Respondent No.1 to live with the Appellant and fulfil his marital obligations towards the Appellant. It was of the opinion that the Appellant had married Respondent No.1 after the death of her 1st husband Ram Saran, and Respondent No.1 had deserted the Appellant after that. The Trial Court decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the Appellant on 03/01/2004.
• Respondent No.1 preferred the first appeal (No. 110/2004) under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The primary issue in the appeal was whether there was any evidence to prove that the Appellant was the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1. In its judgement dated 28/11/2007, the High Court was of the opinion that the essentials of a valid Hindu marriage, as required under Section 7 of the Act, were not fulfilled between the parties and held that Respondent No.1 was not the husband of the Appellant. Thus, the High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by this judgement, the Appellant sought a review of the High Court's judgement dated 28/11/2007. On the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the judgement, the review petition was dismissed on 23/01/2009.
• Therefore, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court, by way of a special leave petition, against the impugned High Court orders dated 28/11/2007 and 23/01/2009.

Issues Involved:

• Whether the cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife for an appreciable period would raise the conjecture of a valid marriage between them and whether such a conjecture would designate the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C
• Whether rigid proof of marriage is imperative for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C taking into consideration the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
• Whether a marriage performed according to traditional customs and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the prerequisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would designate the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

Relevant Section Involved
Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

1. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:
   
   1. his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
   2. his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
   3. his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
   4. his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate 1* * * as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
      
      Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
      
      2[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
      
      Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.]
      
      Explanation: For the purposes of this Chapter,
      
      (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
      
      (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
      
      3[(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.]
       
2. If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each months 4[allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
   
   Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
   
   Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
   
   Explanation.
   If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him.
    
3. No wife shall be entitled to receive an 5[allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
    
4. On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Arguments Involved
The Contention By The Appellant:
According to the custom of Katha and Sindur, the Appellant was married to Respondent No.1.

Respondent No. 1 started torturing and harassing the Appellant after some time. He also stooped her maintenance and stopped performing his marital obligations to her.

The Contention By The Respondent:
There was no evidence to prove that the Appellant was the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1.

Obiter Dicta
The presumption of marriage is much stronger than a presumption in regard to other facts.

When it is proved that a man and woman were living together as husband and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly established, that they were living together as a consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.

The primary objective of section 125 of the Cr.PC. is to prevent poverty and vagrancy of women, children and old people.

If a man has lived with a woman for a long time, then he must be held accountable and pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her. It does not matter if they haven't completed all the legal formalities of a valid marriage.

The Domestic Violence Act 2005 attributes a very broad meaning to the term 'domestic abuse' and also includes economic abuse within its purview. The Act also gives a very wide interpretation to the term 'domestic relationship' and includes even live-in relationships in that meaning. Section 26 of the Act mentions that the reliefs stated in the Act can be sought in any legal proceedings before any civil, family or criminal court.

A broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.

Ratio Decidendi
The parties of the case lived together, and their marriage was solemnized by the social custom of Katha and Sindur. By this social custom, they were treated as husband and wife.

Section 125 of the Cr.PC. serves a very important social justice function. It falls within the constitutional purview of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Indian Constitution.

A man should not be able to take advantage of legal loopholes by enjoying the benefits of a de facto marriage without taking any responsibilities and obligations.

The two-judge Bench was of the opinion that the monetary reliefs and compensations provided to women in live-in relationships under the 2005 Act must also be allowed to the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

Judgement
The two-judge Bench requested the Chief Justice of India to refer the following, amongst other, questions to a larger bench:

Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?

Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

Social Impact
In the present eon, a movement has evolved among unmarried couples to live together as husband and wife as long as they have attained the age of majority. Some of these couples never obligate a legally binding marriage. Difficult ramifications flow from such relationships where due to one reason or another, the relationship may come to an end. In such cases, we find that couples had devoted heavily to the relationship both financially and emotionally.

The disappointed persons in the relationship think that since there was no legally recognized marriage, they cannot make a reference to the law in acquiring their property back or in some instances getting compensation. In the case of Chanmuniya Vs. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr, the appellant have been married to one Virendra Kumar Singh in accordance with the local traditions of Katha and Sindur.

The High Court in its findings has surmised that the preconditions of a valid Hindu marriage, as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had not been performed, thus the respondent was not the husband of the appellant. But the SC said that even if the parties may not have performed the sanctioned essentials of a valid marriage, but they had entered into this relationship with the animus to marry and to be called as husband and wife before the eyes of the society. It was lucidly stated down in the facts of the case that the appellant and respondent had been living together as husband and wife and had been performing all marital obligations towards each other for some time.

Legal Impact
The law provides for the hypothesis of marriage. In the instant case, the appellant and the respondent have been living together as man and wife for a sufficient period of time. The people around them must have supposed, from their manner that the parties are husband and wife. The parties must be living or should have lived in one household and behaved in a way that led others to believe that they were husband and wife.

The objectives of Section-125 of Cr.P.C are to achieve a social purpose and to avoid vagrancy and destitution. So in light of this, the court held that the questions raised by the petitioner should be referred to a larger bench of the SC and in their view, the interpretation they have given would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the preamble of the constitution.

Conclusion
The two-judge Bench was inclined to take a broad view of the term 'wife'. However, there were cases wherein the Supreme Court had taken a contrary view. Therefore, the two-judge Bench had to respect the past judgements of the Court. It was evident that the Courts must take cognizance of the fast-changing social context of our country while interpreting statutory provisions which have social implications.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Burhan U Din Bashir

Authentication No: OT328523029268-12-1023