Landmark Case – Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

Court: The Supreme Court of India
Case Citation: REFERENCE: SLP (Civil) No.15071 of 2009
Judgment Summary: Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2010
Judges: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly
Parties: Chanmuniya (Appellant), Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & another (Respondent)

Overview:
Ram Saran and Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, the younger son and the first respondent, were the sons of Sarju Singh. Chanmuniya, the appellant, was initially married to Ram Saran and had two daughters, Asha and Usha. After Ram Saran’s death in 1992, the appellant claimed that she married the first respondent in 1996 following the customs and practices of the Kushwaha community. According to tradition, after the spouse’s death, the widow could marry the deceased’s younger brother. The appellant asserted that her marriage to the first respondent occurred with customary rituals. She alleged that they lived as husband and wife, fulfilling their marital duties. However, over time, the first respondent began mistreating and neglecting her, including withholding financial support and refusing marital obligations. Consequently, the appellant filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and a restitution of conjugal rights suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the High Court overturned this decision, leading the appellant to seek special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.

Important Provisions:

• Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Deals with the provision for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Specifies the ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage.
• Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: Provides for urgent relief proceedings for deserted wives or dependent children, legitimate or illegitimate.

Issues:

1. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites, even without strictly adhering to Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or other personal laws, entitles a woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is a prerequisite for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether extended cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife implies a valid marriage, entitling the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

Analysis of the Judgment:
The judgment drew upon the precedent set by the House of Lords in the Breadalbane case, which held that cohabitation as husband and wife, with the essential repute, could establish a mutual contract of marriage. The relationship, even if initially adulterous, could transform into a marriage with the consent of both parties, demonstrated through habit and repute. In this case, the appellant and the first respondent were closely related, lived together, and were socially recognized as husband and wife. The wedding rituals performed further reinforced this presumption. Thus, the Court found a strong presumption of their marriage, aligning with the House of Lords’ decision.

The judgment also referred to the Marvin v. Marvin case, where property acquired in a non-marital relationship was subject to distribution based on an implied contract. The Supreme Court of India recognized the changing dynamics of Indian society, acknowledging live-in relationships as domestic relationships entitling women to relief. The Court emphasized interpreting terms like ‘domestic abuse,’ ‘economic abuse,’ and ‘wife’ broadly. ‘Domestic abuse’ was held to include ‘economic abuse,’ which involves depriving one of economic resources, as per the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court had the authority to order the respondent to provide monetary relief to the appellant, encompassing more than just maintenance for an aggrieved party subjected to spousal abuse.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, granting special leave, ruled in favor of the appellant. It held that living together as husband and wife for a substantial period could serve as evidence of marriage, and strict proof of marriage was not mandatory for providing maintenance to the wife. The Court advocated for a broad interpretation of the term ‘wife’ in cases of couples cohabiting as husband and wife, recognizing live-in relationships as domestic relationships. It further stressed the entitlement of women in such relationships to protection from domestic violence, a serious offense for which the offender should be held accountable in every aspect.