DV Landmark Judgement #2: Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha And Anr [2010]: Living-In Relationships Fall Within The Ambit Of Domestic Relations Where Strict Proof Of Marriage Is Not Required

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)

SUBJECT

Domestic abuse also includes economic abuse and refusing to pay maintenance forms part of economic abuse towards the wife. The settled legal principle here is that any strict proof of marriage may not be required as a precondition for maintenance in a case where man and woman are living together as husband and wife for a long period of time. The Supreme Court of India has held that the term ‘wife’ should be broadly interpreted to fulfill the true spirit of the beneficial provision of maintenance.

AN OVERVIEW

1. Ram Saran and Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (younger son & the first respondent) were the sons of one Sarju Singh. Chanmuniya, the appellant, was married to Ram Saran and had two daughters, Asha and Usha.
2. On March 7, 1992, Ram Saran passed away. Following that, the appellant claimed that she married the first respondent in 1996 in accordance with the Kushwaha community's customs and usages. According to legend, following the death of the spouse, the widow was married to Ram Saran's younger brother. The appellant was married off in Katha and Sindur, according to local rites and customs.
3. The appellant claimed that she and the first respondent were living together as husband and wife and that they had fulfilled all of their marital obligations. The appellant further claimed that after a period of time, the first respondent began harassing and abusing her; he even stopped paying to support her and refused to fulfill his nuptial duties to her.
4. Following that, the appellant filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as well as restitution of conjugal rights suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court ruled in favour of the appellant, but the High Court overturned the trial court's decision. As a result, the appellant petitioned the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal assailing the High Court's rulings.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Lays out provision for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Provides ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage.
• Section 488 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898- The proceedings for urgent relief to a deserted wife or a dependent child, legitimate or illegitimate are provided.

ISSUES

The issues present before the Court were:

• 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.?
• 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 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?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The House of Lords held in Lieutenant C.W. Campbell v. John A.G. Campbell (1867), generally known as the Breadalbane case, that cohabitation as husband and wife, with the essential repute, was enough proof that the parties had mutually contracted to the marriage connection. A relationship that started out as adulterous can turn married with the consent of both parties. This can be proven by habit and repute.
2. Both the appellant and the first respondent were related, lived in the same house, and were considered as husband and wife according to social custom. Katha and Sindur officiated at their wedding. As a result, based on the House of Lords' decision ratio, this Court had a very strong presumption of their marriage.
3. In Marvin v. Marvin, the plaintiff and defendant lived in a nonmarital relationship, with an oral agreement to share equally all property accumulated. Upon dissolution of their relationship, the plaintiff brought suit to enforce the oral agreement. The Court considered how the property gained in a non-marital relationship should be distributed. The court allowed not only the plaintiff's claim that an express contract existed which should be enforced, but also found that implied contracts might be found in such situations. The Supreme Court of India has recognised the changes in Indian society and has considered live-in relationships as domestic relationships whereby women are entitled to relief.
4. In Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh, 1963, the Supreme Court stated that the provisions for the support of wives and children in Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 were intended to serve a social purpose. Section 488 of Cr. P.C, 1898 establishes the procedures for urgent relief to a deserted wife or a dependent child, legitimate or illegitimate.
5. The Supreme Court had in the instant case emphasised on interpreting the terms ‘domestic abuse’, ‘economic abuse’, ‘wife’ broadly. The term ‘domestic abuse’ was held to include ‘economic abuse’ which means depriving one of the economic resources as per the Domestic Violence Act, 22005. The Court also observed that it was empowered to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to the appellant for the losses incurred by her which might not necessarily be limited to the maintenance of an already aggrieved party who has been tortured and abused by their spouse.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court granted leave and ruled in favour of the appellant stating that living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period shall suffice as proof of marriage and no strict proof of marriage is required for providing maintenance to the wife. It directed that the term ‘wife’ should be broadly understood in the case of a couple living together as husband and wife and has recognised live-relationships within the meaning of ‘domestic relationship’. Further, it was held that the women in such relationships are entitled to be protected from domestic violence which is a grave crime and the culprit should not be able to get away with it without paying for it in every sense.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement