Supreme Court Upholds Maintenance Rights for Woman in Live-in Relationship: Kamala vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2018) INSC 884

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 884

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a woman who has lived with a man for a significant period, be denied maintenance simply because their marriage isn’t formally recognized? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this critical question regarding the rights of women in live-in relationships. The core issue was whether a woman, who cohabited with a man and had children with him, could claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), even if their marriage was not proven through strict legal standards. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The case involves Kamala (Appellant No. 1), her daughter (Appellant No. 2), and her son (Appellant No. 3), who sought maintenance from M.R. Mohan Kumar (Respondent). Kamala claimed that she married Mohan Kumar on July 18, 1998, at a temple against their parents’ wishes. They had two children, a daughter born on May 9, 2001, and a son born on July 18, 2003. They lived together in a rented house in Mysore.

According to Kamala, while their marriage subsisted, Mohan Kumar married his colleague, Archana, on April 1, 2005. Following this, he allegedly neglected and harassed Kamala and their children. Initially, after a police complaint, Mohan Kumar paid Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance. However, when they moved to a new residence, he ceased providing support. Consequently, Kamala filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her children.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that Kamala had proven a husband-wife relationship with Mohan Kumar and that Appellants No. 2 and 3 were their children. The court noted that the couple lived together, and society recognized them as husband and wife. The Family Court ordered Mohan Kumar to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to Kamala and Rs. 2,500 per month to each of the children from the date of the petition until the date of the judgment (August 12, 2008). From the date of the judgment, the maintenance was set at Rs. 2,500 per month for each of the three appellants.

However, the High Court reversed the Family Court’s decision, stating that Kamala failed to prove she was legally married to Mohan Kumar. The High Court held that she did not provide evidence of a marriage solemnized according to custom and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section provides a mechanism for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to support themselves. The relevant portion of Section 125 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C. states that:

“If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife…”

The core issue is the interpretation of the word “wife” within this section. The respondent argued that “wife” should only refer to a legally wedded wife, while the appellants contended that the term should also include women in relationships akin to marriage, especially when children are born out of such relationships.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that when a couple lives together as husband and wife, a presumption arises that a valid marriage exists. They contended that since Kamala and Mohan Kumar lived together, had children, and were recognized by society as a married couple, a presumption of marriage should be made in their favor.
• The appellants further argued that the Family Court had analyzed the evidence and found that Kamala was the legally wedded wife of Mohan Kumar and that the High Court should not have interfered with these factual findings in its revisional jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that under Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., only a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance. He contended that no valid marriage had occurred between him and Kamala, and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under this provision.
• The respondent argued that the evidence did not prove that a marriage had taken place between the parties, and therefore, the claim for maintenance was not maintainable.
• The respondent relied on the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530, where it was held that the term “wife” in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. refers only to a legally wedded wife.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the term “wife” under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, includes a woman who has been in a live-in relationship with a man for a considerable period, even if the strict legal requirements of a valid marriage are not met.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the presumption of marriage from cohabitation:

• Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881) 6 AC 364 (Privy Council): Held that when a man and woman live together as husband and wife, the law presumes a valid marriage unless proven otherwise.
• Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185 (Privy Council): Reiterated the principle that cohabitation as husband and wife presumes a valid marriage.
• Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 PC 135 (Privy Council): The law presumes marriage over concubinage when a man and woman cohabit for a long time.
• Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231 (Supreme Court of India): Continuous cohabitation can raise a presumption of marriage, but this presumption is rebuttable.
• Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation (1978) 3 SCC 527 (Supreme Court of India): A strong presumption of marriage arises when partners live together as husband and wife for a long time, and the burden to rebut this presumption lies on the person challenging the marriage.
• Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520 (Supreme Court of India): A presumption of valid marriage arises when partners live together for a long time as husband and wife.

On the interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C.:

• Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675 (Supreme Court of India): Held that the standard of proof of marriage under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not as strict as required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also stated that maintenance cannot be denied where there is some evidence of living together.
• Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the divergence of judicial opinion on the interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held that a broad interpretation should be given to include women in live-in relationships.
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530 (Supreme Court of India): Held that the expression “wife” in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife.
• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636 (Supreme Court of India): Held that a woman not lawfully married cannot be included within the expression of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and how they relied on various legal precedents. The Court noted that the Family Court had correctly assessed the evidence, including the birth certificates of the children, photos of the couple, and the testimony of witnesses, to conclude that Kamala and Mohan Kumar lived as husband and wife.

The Court also discussed the divergence of judicial opinion on the interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly noting the conflicting views in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530* and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636*. The Supreme Court, however, aligned itself with the view taken in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141*, which advocated for a broader interpretation of the term “wife” to include women in live-in relationships, especially considering the social object of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need for social justice and the protection of women and children. The Court emphasized that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Court also highlighted the following points:

• The Court recognized that strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
• The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of the individual, as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.
• The Court noted that a broad interpretation of the term “wife” is necessary to fulfill the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.
• The Court observed that 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.
• The Court considered the fact that the couple had lived together as husband and wife and also had children.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings and legal interpretation, with a clear emphasis on the factual aspects of the case and the social context.

The Court’s decision to interpret the term “wife” broadly was driven by the need to protect women and children from destitution. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that would have limited the definition of “wife” to only legally wedded wives.

The Supreme Court quoted from Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141* stating:

“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 Court also observed:

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.”

The Court further stated:

“We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

Key Takeaways

• Women in live-in relationships, who have lived with a man for a considerable period, can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even if they are not legally married.
• The standard of proof of marriage in maintenance proceedings is not as strict as in other legal proceedings.
• The court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution.
• The decision reinforces the principle that the law presumes in favor of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to:

• Pay the arrears of maintenance as directed by the Family Court, Mysore, to the appellants within a period of two months.
• Continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the Family Court on or before the 10th of every English calendar month.

The Court also granted the appellants the liberty to move the Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable in this case.