Landmark Judgment on Presumption of Live-in-Relationship Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, Oct 04, 2019, at ,12:45 PM Title of the Case – Presumption of Marriage in Live-in-relationship Name of the case – Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & anr, (2011) 1 SCC 141 Date of Judgment – 07th October, 2010 Judges: Justice G.S. Singhvi, Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Subject and sections involved – Section 7 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Issue: Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 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 provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005? Whether a marriage performed according to 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 Cr.P.C.? Fact of the Case: Click Here to Get All Important Judgment of the Month One Sarju Singh Kushwaha had two sons, Ram Saran (elder son) and Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (younger son and the first respondent). The appellant, Chanmuniya, was married to Ram Saran and had 2 daughters-Asha, the first one, was born in 1988 and Usha, the second daughter, was born in 1990. Ram Saran died on 7.03.1992. That according to custom of Kushwaha community the widow has to marry to the yonger brother of the husband after death of the husband. Chanmuniya was married in accordance with the local custom of Katha and Sindur but after sometime, the first respondent, started harassing and torturing her, stopped her maintenance and also refused to discharge his marital obligations towards her. Aggrieved, she filed a case u/s 125 CrPC. The trial court decreed but the High Court observed that the essentials of a valid Hindu Marriage, as required u/s 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had not been performed between the first respondent and the appellant and thus held that first respondent was not the husband. The appellant thus approached the court by Special Leave Petition. Ratio of the case - The Supreme Court held that where parties have cohabited together for a certain period of time, then the courts can construe a presumption of marriage and hence apply the rules of marriage to deal with issues of those parties. All parties that seek to rely on the presumption of marriage must prove that indeed a union existed, and such a union can be challenged only by strong and satisfactory evidence Click Here to Get Into Legal World Magazine for Advocates and Law Students The Court further observed that the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' consistent with the objective. Thus, in those 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 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 of maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its report of 2003 opined that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended that the word 'wife' in Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be amended to include a woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors, considering the provision of Section 125 of the 1973 Code, opined that the said provision is truly secular in character and is different from the personal law of the parties. The Court further held that such provisions are essentially of a prophylactic character and cut across the barriers of religion. The Court further held that the liability imposed by Section 125 to maintain close relatives, who are indigent, is founded upon the individual's obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution.