CHANMUNIYA v. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA AND ANOTHER (2011) 1 SCC 141

RELEVANT FACTS

• Chanmuniya was married to Ram Saran. After the death of Ram Saran, the appellant married Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (brother of Ram Saran/Respondent) according to the customs of the Kushwaha community under Katha and sindur.
• She was treated in a cruel manner, was tortured, and subsequently left by Respondent, after the many years of marital companionship.
• She filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights.
• The trial court revealed that the marriage between the appellant and respondent is not completely valid and some ceremonies have not been performed.
• Aggrieved by this decision Chanmuniya had appealed this to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ISSUES

• Whether or not a presumption of marriage arises when parties live together for a long time, thus giving rise to a claim of maintenance under section 125 of 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 provision of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
• Whether a marriage performed according to the 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 of Cr.P.C.?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 125, 488 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
• Section 3, 20, 21 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Article 141 of the Indian Constitution
• Section 7, 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

• In Lt., C.W. Campbell v. John A.G. Campbell (Breadalbane case)1, the House of Lords held that cohabitations, with the required repute, as husband and wife, was proof that the parties between themselves had mutually contracted the matrimonial relation. A relationship that may be adulterous at the beginning may become matrimonial by consent. This may be evidenced by habit and repute.
• In the instant case, there are both the parties lived in the same house by a social custom Katha and sindur. Therefore, the Court held that there is a very strong presumption in favor of marriage.
• So far as the application of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, Apex Court was of the opinion that in such cases there arises a presumption as to marriage and by presumption them to be husband and wife, the court can presume in such cases based on the fact that:
  • Parties lived together for a reasonable period of time.
  • They lived together as husband and wife.

More importantly, as per the option of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, strict proof of marriage is not necessary for the purpose of application of section 125 of Cr.P.C. in support of this judicial finding, a number of cases can be referred to substantiate the argument:

1. In the case of Mohd. Ali v. Md. Ibrahim, wherein Privy Council made an important observation: “Law presumes in favor of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years”.
2. In the case of Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmed, wherein the court recognized long standing cohabitation of the parties, from which the couple had 4 kids and their cohabitation was for 24 years and there was no documentary evidence in support of their marriage. This case was concerning the succession suit not maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P.C.
3. In the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, the case concerning maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the court recognized by the court that law leans in favor of legitimacy.
4. In Dwarka Prasad Sathpathy v. Bidyut Dixit5, the court observed that “if the claimant in proceedings of Section 125 of Cr. P.C succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived tougher as husband and wife the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses and in such a situation the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. Once it is admitted that the marriage preacher was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu rites in the proceedings in Section 125.”Observation made by the court, in this case, is self-explanatory and is sufficient to establish the scope and extent of Section 125 of Cr. P.C.
5. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, the court observed that there arises a presumption when a man and woman live together and children born of such relationship will not be illegitimate and if a live-in relationship continues for a long time it will not amount walk-in and walkout. But then this case was not concerning Section 125 of Cr. P.C.
6. In the case of Savitaben v. the State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that strict proof of marriage is the requirement of u/Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and held that the expression “wife” must be construed in a strict manner.
7. However, in the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled Savitaben v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2005 SC 1809) and allowed a bigamous wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. subject to her lack of knowledge as to respondent’s first marriage.

On the behalf of all these cases’ judgment, the court held that Maintenance claim u/Section 125 of Cr. P.C, in “such cases” should be allowed to a woman based on:

• long-standing relationship
• as Husband and wife
• presumption of marriage.

And an intervention of a larger bench of the Supreme court is expected so as to clarify the legal position in such cases. And the court also believed that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.

The post A Female partner can get maintenance if marriage is performed as per the social customs appeared first on LexForti .

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020)

Introduction

In March 2020 Indian government had announced a lockdown due to the rapid spread of the Coronavirus or Covid- 19. This had caused a halt in the functioning of the whole country. All the sectors of the economy faced a huge difficulty, so did the judiciary. In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) considering the current pandemic situation, the Supreme Court of India passed a suo moto order stating that lawyers and litigants who are facing problems regarding the physically filing procedures in respective Courts/tribunals do not have to go to the courts to do so. It also ordered that all periods of limitation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act be extended and also provided directions regarding the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 from 15.03.2020 till further orders were passed in the present proceeding.

Background

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Indian constitution as many lawyers and litigators faced difficulty regarding the filing of the procedures during the lockdown and couldn’t adhere to the limitations stated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and also limitations regarding serving of summons, notice, and exchange of pleadings and documents.

Judgement

1. The Supreme Court passed an order extending all periods of limitation that were prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It also sought some temporary minor changes in the aforesaid order which are:
   1. Section 29 (A) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 did not prescribe any period of limitation but it fixed a time to do certain acts such as making an arbitral award within a specific time. So the order directed that an extension of the limitation period will be granted.
   2. It also directed that the extension be applied in Section 23(4) of the Act aforementioned.

2. Sec 12 (A) of Commercial Courts Act 2015 dealing with prescribed time limit for completing the process of compulsory pre-institution of mediation and settlement also got an extension from the time lockdown is lifted plus 45 days thereafter.
3. The order also stated that; service of notice, summons, and exchange of pleading/ documents are necessary for legal proceeding thus it directed that alternative virtual methods be used such as e-mail, FAX, commonly used instant messaging services like WhatsApp Telegram, etc.
4. Regarding the extension validity of a cheque the Bench stated that even though the time period is not prescribed by the Statutes but also a period is prescribed by RBI under Sec 35 A of Banking Regulation Act 1949, the court didn’t find it appropriate to interfere with the prescribed limitation period. It advised that RBI may in its discretion alter the period accordingly.

Critical Analysis

1. The extension provided by this order passed by the Bench of Supreme court adheres to the current situation of a pandemic. It provided relief extensively.
2. As it is a temporary relief it won’t affect the procedure once the lockdown ends. It has clearly mentioned that the extension of limitation is till the end of the lockdown.
3. As social distancing and lockdown are instituted in India it becomes difficult to physically file for proceeding of the case and to serve notice, summons, and pleading/ documents. This order has made it easier by stating that these procedures can be done by using alternative virtual methods. Although it has lessened the burden of the lawyers and litigators it has a major drawback. There are chances that the documents that are submitted are forged or edited thus questioning the authenticity and validity of the document.
4. During the pandemic many people lost their business thus making it difficult to make profits. As there is no extension given for the validity of cheques many businessmen will become defaulters as they won’t be having enough funds for repayment.

Conclusion

The decree passed by the Bench has proven to be one of the important decisions as it has invoked its power considering the ongoing pandemic faced by the public and the judiciary at large. This decision will help smooth functioning of proceedings, as possible alternatives are suggested by the Hon’ble court. The extensions provided by the decree will aid those people who are in dire need of this relief thus reducing the burden on them. 

The post Extension of Limitation in Pandemic appeared first on LexForti .