A partner can receive alimony if the marriage is conducted in accordance with the social customs of the Himanshu Garg student of Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad
CHANMUNIYA v. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA AND ANOTHER (2011) 1 SCC 141
- Chanmuniya was married to Ram Saran. After Ram Saran’s death, appellate leader Virendra Kumar Singh married Kushwaha (Ram Saran’s brother / defendant) according to the customs of the Katha and Sindur Kushwaha community.
- She was cruelly treated, tortured and, after years of marital companionship, left behind by the Respondent.
- She submitted a maintenance application according to § 125 Cr.PC as well as an application for reimbursement of marriage rights.
- The court found that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was not fully valid and some ceremonies were not performed.
- Affected by this decision, Chanmuniya appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- Whether or not a presumption of marriage arises if the parties live together for a long time, which creates a maintenance claim according to § 125 Cr.PC?
- Whether a strict proof of marriage is indispensable for a maintenance claim according to § 125 Cr.PC taking into account the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005?
- Whether a marriage performed in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies without strictly complying with the requirements of Section 7 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 or any other personal law entitling the woman to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC would?
JUDGMENT WITH REASONS
- In Lt. CW Campbell v. John AG Campbell (Breadalbane case) 1, the House of Lords took the view that living together with the requisite reputation as husband and wife was evidence that the parties had entered into a marital relationship with one another. A relationship that may initially be adulterous can become marital through consent. This can be evidenced by habit and reputation.
- In the present case, both parties, Katha and Sindur, live in the same house by a social custom. Therefore, the Court found that there was a very strong presumption in favor of marriage.
- In relation to the application of Section 125 of Cr.PC, the Apex Court held that there was a presumption of marriage in such cases and that in such cases the court could presume that the husband and wife were involved Fact that:
- The parties lived together for a reasonable period of time.
- They lived together as a husband and wife.
More importantly, under the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s option, strict proof of marriage is not required for the application of Section 125 of the Cr.PC in support of that judgment. A number of cases can be used to justify the argument:
- In the case of Mohd. Ali v. Md. Ibrahim, in which the privy councilor made an important remark: “The law assumes in favor of marriage and against cohabitation that a man and a woman live together continuously for several years”.
- In the case of Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmed, in which the court recognized the longstanding coexistence of the parties, of which the couple had 4 children and whose coexistence was 24 years, and there was no documentary evidence of their marriage. This case concerned the succession lawsuit, which was not carried out under Section 125 Cr. Pc
- In the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, the case of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, which the court has recognized by the court that the law tends in favor of legitimacy.
- In the Dwarka Prasad Sathpathy v. Bidyut Dixit5 case, the court found that “if the applicant is in proceedings under Section 125 Cr. PC succeeds in showing that she and the respondent lived harder as husband and wife. The court may presume that they are lawfully married spouses and in such a situation the party denying marital status may rebut the presumption. Once it is admitted that the marriage minister was obeyed, there is no need to further verify that the Hindu rites procedure was completed in the procedure in section 125. “The comment made by the court in this case is self-explanatory and suffices to understand the scope and scope of Section 125 Cr. Pc
- In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v Rajni Kant, the court found that a presumption exists when a man and woman live together and children born from such a relationship are not out of wedlock and when a living relationship has existed over a long period of time will not be accessible and accessible. However, this case did not concern § 125 Cr. Pc
- In the case of Savitaben v. Gujarat State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that strict proof of marriage is the requirement of Section 125 Cr.PC and ruled that the term “wife” should be interpreted in strict manner.
- However, in the Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled Savitaben v Gujarat State (AIR 2005 SC 1809) and allowed a famous woman to claim alimony under Section 125 of the Cr.PC to which she is subject to Deficiency of knowledge about the respondent’s first marriage.
On behalf of all of these judgments, the court ruled that the maintenance claim u / § 125 Cr. PC should be allowed to a woman in “such cases” based on:
- longstanding relationship
- as a husband and wife
- Presumption of marriage.
And intervention by a larger Supreme Court bank is expected to clarify the legal situation in such cases. And the court also considered that such an interpretation would be a fair application of the principles enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, namely social justice and respect for the dignity of the individual.