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 .

Abhilasha Vs Parkash & Ors (2020)

Abstract

On 15th September 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that an unmarried major daughter can claim maintenance from her father. The scope of applicability of maintenance under Sec 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 was determined by this landmark case. This appeal challenged the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the court dismissed the application under Sec 482 Cr.Pc filed by the appellant regarding setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.

Facts of the case

The respondent in the appeal, mother of the appellant on behalf of her and on behalf of her daughter and two sons filed a maintenance suit under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C against her husband. The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application stating that the maintenance will be granted till the appellant attains the majority. Aggrieved by the decision of magistrate court the appellants filed a criminal revision petition in Additional Sessions Court which was dismissed, stating that Additional Sessions Judge held that as per provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C, the children, who had attained majority are entitled to maintenance if, because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, they are unable to maintain themselves. Later again an appeal was filed by in High court under Sec 482 Cr.Pc and the court upheld the decision made by the Additional Sessions Judge Court. This Appeal was filed to challenge the decision taken by the High Court.

Rationale of Judgement

The Supreme Court decided the case on the following observation:
• The claim of the maintenance was filed when the appellant was a minor. The application of maintenance was allowed by the other Court till she attained the majority. After that, the contention was rejected stating that the appellant was not physically or mentally challenged. The counsel of the appellant relied on Sec 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.
• Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 cast a statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his daughter who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property. As noted above, Hindu Law prior to the enactment of Act, 1956 always obliged a Hindu to maintain an unmarried daughter, who is unable to
maintain herself.
• The application was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate while deciding proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of Act, 1956 and the submission of the appellant cannot be accepted that the Court below should have allowed the application for maintenance even though she has become major.
• The Supreme Court tried to examine the scope and applicability of Sec 125 of Cr.P.C concerning many cases. It discussed whether personal laws will prevail against the concept of maintenance for an unmarried major woman in procedural law.
• The Court held Family Court will in future have the jurisdiction to under both provisions i.e. Sec.125 for maintenance in the Criminal Procedural Code and Sec.20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Judgment

The maintenance interpreted under Section 20 is a broader concept whereas maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is a narrow concept because it just provides immediate relief to the applicant. The Court thus held that a daughter who is an unmarried major and who doesn’t have the capacity to maintain herself can claim maintenance from her father. For enforcement of this right, the application or suit has to be under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.
The court also held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions have made no infirmity in deciding the case as it was not in its jurisdiction

Conclusion

The decision taken by the Court has given the liberty to a daughter to claim maintenance from her father. It should be observed that the Supreme Court has extended the jurisdiction of Family court as it can decide on the case where Sec 125 and Sec 20 of different Acts are compiled to seek justice.

The post Maintenance for Unmarried Major Daughters appeared first on LexForti .