Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

Title of the Case: –        Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

Citation: –                        (2011) 1 SCC 141

Case No.: –                        SLP Petition (Civil) NO. 15071 OF 2009

Court: –                                Supreme Court of India

Appellant: –                     Chanmuniya

Respondent: –               Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

Bench: –                           G.S. Sanghvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

Date of Judgement: – 07/10/2010

Facts: –

• Ram Saran and Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (Elder son and the first respondent), two sons of one Sarju Singh, were born. Chanmuniya, the appellant, got married to Ram Saran and had two daughters, Asha and Usha and Ram Saran Died on 07/03/1992.

• The appellant then argued that she was married off to the first respondent in accordance with the Kushwaha community’s customs and usages in 1996. According to tradition or Customs the widow would be married off to the deceased husband’s younger brother with proper local rites like Katha and Sindur after his passing.

• The appellant argued that she and the first respondent were cohabitating as husband and wife and that they had fulfilled all of their marital duties to one another. The appellant also argued that the first respondent began harassing and abusing her after a while, ceased paying her financial obligations, and also refused to fulfil his marital duties to her.

• Therefore, she filed a suit for recovery of conjugal rights in the Courts of 1^st Additional District Judge Ghazipur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as procedures for maintenance before 1^st Additional Civil Judge Mohamadabad, Ghazipur (No. 20/1997) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

• On 3.1.2004, the Trial Court granted the appellant’s request for recovery of marital rights because it believed that the appellant had remarried the first respondent following Ram Saran’s passing and that the first respondent had abandoned the appellant as a result. It thus ordered the first respondent to cohabitate with the appellant and carry out his marital responsibilities.

• After that Respondent Came up for first appeal Under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, No. (110/2004) regarding any evidence which can prove whether Petitioner was legally wedded with First Respondent.

• The High Court overturned the lower court’s decisions. In order to challenge the High Court’s contested rulings, the appellant filed a Special leave petition with the Supreme Court.

Issues: –

• If a man and woman live together as husband and wife for a significant amount of time, does this suggest that they are legally married, and if so, does this suggest that the woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

• Whether a marriage conducted in accordance with traditions and rites would entitle the woman to support under Section 125 of CRPC and Whether evidence for proving the Lawful marriage is as per the relevant act is fair or not?               

Contention of Appellant: –

 The petitioner argued simply that as per the Maintenance as per the section 125 of CRPC and she wanted to live with like Husband and Wife, all the liabilities or obligation of Marriage must be performed. In other Words, she wants a cohabitation must take Place as Per Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. She also argued that the first respondent began harassing and abusing her after a while, ceased paying her financial obligations, and refused to fulfil his marital duties to her.

Contention of Respondent: –

The Respondent had filed Ist Appeal Regarding the Legal Validity of Marriage with Former Husband and Demanded for valid and reasonable documents which supports the legality of Marriage. The Respondents were not interested in Providing the Maintenance and even interested in Cohabitation as well.

Judgement: –

Therefore, in situations like these when a guy has lived with a woman for a long period even if they may not have met the legal requirements for a marriage, he should be held accountable for maintaining her if he deserts her. And according to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, a marriage that is performed without the tradition or ceremony of either party is not legal. Further the Hon’ble Chief Justice refers to a large bench. The Term Wife is also well defined and cleared after this Judgements mean woman is not lawfully married is not wife at all.

Conclusion: –

As this Case is a Landmark Judgements in the area of Maintenance Under Sec 125 of CRPC and in fields of Hindu Marriage Act Conjugal Rights of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Mostly in light Sec 7 and 28 are discussed here. And in this Case the Woman and Wife had been clearly recognised and both terms are different from each other. Thus, now we can say in short that if a couple lived for a long time and performing all obligation of marital then maintenance must be provided at any situation and even if somehow if legal requirements for marriage is absence it is Okay and still liable for Maintenances to the deserted Parties.

written by ajeet kumar intern under legal vidhiya

Admin