New Delhi, August 03: The Supreme Court has ruled that a long period of co-habitation and acceptance by society of a man and woman as husband and wife are strong enough reasons to prove they are married in the eye of the law.
A bench of justices SB Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said these two factors establish a valid marriage. The apex court said the onus was on the other party to prove the marriage invalid.
The ruling came on a lawsuit filed by Challama, the mother of KT Subramanya, who died of an illness in 1988. Challama claimed that as her son had never married Tilaga, she and her two children were not entitled to a share from his insurance settlement or any other assets. She also claimed Tilaga was a woman of “easy virtue”.
Tilaga had sought to move court for a succession certificate to avail the amount from four insurance policies Subramanya had taken. The mother contested her claim but the court granted the certificate to Tilaga.
The trial court said a presumption of marriage between Tilaga and Subramanya in December 1984 could be drawn from documents, including photographs of a wedding ceremony.
It held that Tilaga and Subramanya had been residing together for nearly four years and as society had accepted them as husband and wife, their marriage must be presumed as valid.
A superior court at Shimoga had felt Challama was entitled to one-fourth share of her son’s estate, but refused to accept her plea that Tilaga and her children were not entitled to a succession certificate. Challama’s lawyer OP Chaturvedi contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the wife had to establish that all ‘ingredients’ of a valid marriage were proved. Chaturvedi told the SC that as Tilaga was a “woman of easy virtue”, that the marriage was valid should not be presumed.
Challama had filed documents in which her son described himself as ‘single’ in the application for a job in 1986. But the firm he had worked for said he had applied for and was allotted married staff accommodation.
In January 2008, too, the apex court had ruled that a long live-in relationship was as good as marriage and the couple’s child would be legitimate.
–Agencies–