CHANMUNIYA versus VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 07-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 223 
CHANMUNIYA 
v. 
VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8866 of 2010) 
;,1· 
OCTOBER 07, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73 -
s. 125 -
Maintenance under - Claim of - Interpretation of word 'wife' 
A 
B 
in s. 125 - Divergent views in earlier decision of Supreme C 
Court -
Issues: (1) whether living together of a man and 
woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time 
would raise presumption of valid marriage between them and 
would entitle the woman to maintenance u/s. 125- (2) whether 
strict proof of marriage essential for claim of maintenance u/ D 
s. 125 having regard to the provisions of Protection of Women 
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - (3) whether marriage 
performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, 
without strictly fulfilling the requisites of s. 7(1) of 1955 Act, or 
any other personal law entitles the woman to maintenance u/ E 
s. 125 - Referred to larger Bench - Protection of Women from 
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
s. 7 - Reference to larger Bench - Words and Phrases. 
According to the appellant, she was married to 'RS', 
elder brother of the first respondent. 'RS' died. Thereafter, 
F 
the appellant was married to the first respondent as per 
the customs and usages prevalent in the Kushwaha 
community. The marriage was solemnized with Katha and 
Sindur. They lived together as husband and wife. After 
some time the first respondent started harassing and 
G 
torturing the appellant, stopped her maintenance and 
also refused to discharge his marital obligations towards 
her. The appellant filed petition under Section 125 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance and 
223 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of 
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court decreed the 
suit for restitution of conjugal rights. In appeal, the High 
Court held that since the essentials of a valid Hindu 
marriage as required under Section 7 of the Hindu 
8 Marriage Act were not performed between the first 
respondent and the appellant, the first respondent was 
not the husband of the appellant, and set aside the 
findings of the trial court. The review petition was also 
dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant 
c appeal. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal were: whether a man and woman living 
together for a long time, even without a valid marriage, 
would raise a presumption of a valid marri<'ge entitling 
D such a woman to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.; 
and what is meant by 'wife' under section 125 Cr.P.C. 
especially having regard to explanation under clause (b) 
of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 
E 
Referring the matter to the larger bench, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In cases where a man, who lived with a 
woman for a long time and even though they may not 
have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, 
should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if 
F he deserts her. The man should not be allowed to benefit 
from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of 
a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and 
obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the 
woman to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision 
G of maintenance in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 is meant to prevent. [Para 26] [235-D-FJ 
H 
1.2 In the instant case, both the appellant and the first 
respondent were related and lived in the same house and 
CHANMUNIYA v. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH 
225 
KUSHWAHA & ANR. 
by a social custom were treated as husband and wife. 
A 
Their marriage was solemnized with Katha and Sindur. 
Therefore, there is a very strong presumption in favour 
of marriage. [Para 13] [232-A-B] 
1.3 There is a divergence of judicial opinion on the 
8 
interpretation of the word 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A broad view is to be taken 
of the definition of 'wife' having regard to the social 
object of Section 125 in the Code. However, sitting in a 
two-Judge Bench, a view contrary to the views expressed 
C 
in Yamuna Bai's case and Savitaben Somabai Bhatiya's 
case that the expression 'wife' in section 125 of the Code 
should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife, 
cannot be taken. [Para 33] [237-D] 
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav D 
and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 644; Savi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.