Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Type: Civil Appeal.

Date of Judgement: 07/10/2010.

Appellant: Chanmuniya.

Respondent: Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr.

Bench:

• Justice G.S. Singhvi.
• Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.

Statutes Referred:

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Cases Referred:

• Dinohamy v. W.L. Balahamy [AIR 1927 P.C. 185].
• Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Ors. [AIR 1929 PC 135].
• Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521].
• Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors. [1969 (3) SCC 802].
• Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807].
• Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375].
• Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 556].
• Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. [(1999) 7 SCC 675].
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another, AIR 1988 SC 644.
• Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2005 SC 1809.

Facts:

• 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.

Issue:

• Whether a man or a woman living together for a long time, even without a valid marriage, would raise a presumption of a valid marriage, entitling such a woman to maintenance? What was meant by ‘Wife’ under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially with regard to the explanation under clause (b) of the Section?

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.

Judgement: 

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

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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.?

• Leave Granted.

Rationale:

• 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.

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.

Prepared by Mihir Poojary.