Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha

 Chanmuniya  v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha


Citation: (2011) 1 SCC 141.

Bench Composition: G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly

No of Judges: 2

Appeal/Petition Number: SLP (Civil) No.15071 of 2009Section and the Act: Section 7 and 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 2005.Facts of the Case:

  • The appellant in this case was married to the first respondent as per the customs and usages prevalent and after his death, to his younger brother..
  • After few days of marriage appellant was harassed and tortured, stopped maintenance and also faced refusal of  discharge his marital obligations towards her. So, she initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance and a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of 1st ADJ, Ghazipur. Appellant was granted by restitution of conjugal rights in trial court, which was reversed by High Court.


  • Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) the Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the marriage valid.
  • Whether the living together of a man and woman would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them.
  • Whether expression ‘wife’ in Section 125of the CrPC, 1973 should be interpreted to mean a woman who is not legally wedded.


  • Considering Sec 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the marriage performed in absence of customary rites and ceremonies of either parties to marriage is not valid.
  • Mere intention of the parties to live together as husband and wife is not enough. It is submitted that intention alone can neither alone can confer nor take away the status of marriage.
  • There is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of ‘wife’ in Section 125of the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife.
  • 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
  • Further, requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here