Law Presumes Marriage When Man & Woman Cohabits For Long Time : Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court recently observed that when a man and a woman have continuously cohabited for a long time, there is a presumption of marriage.A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohil and Rajesh Bindal observed : “law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity.” Brief Factual BackgroundThe facts that have resulted in the present appeal as follows:Late Subedar Bhave was enrolled in the Army in the year 1960. During the subsistence of his marriage with Anusuya, he married the appellant no.1(Smt. Shiramabai). Appellants No. 2 and 3 are the offspring of the deceased and appellant no. 1. Three years down the line, deceased was discharged from service and granted service pension. On 25th January, 1984, the deceased was discharged from service at his request and was granted service pension. On 15th November, 1990, the deceased and Anusuya were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Thereafter, the deceased approached the respondent No. 2 for deleting the name of Anusuya and endorsing the name of the appellant No. 1 in the PPO. Subedar Bhave expired in the year 2001. Subsequently, appellant No. 1 approached the respondents for grant of family pension. The said request was, however, rejected by the respondents on the ground that the deceased had got divorced in November, 1990, whereas the appellant No.1 claimed to have got married to her in February, 1981, during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. The High Court in its impugned order refused to grant any relief to the appellant no. 1. However, it entitled appellants No. 2 and 3 to the estate of Late Subedar Bhave which was in the custody of the respondents.Contentions of the PartiesThe submissions of advocate Rahul Joshi, appearing for the appellants, were based on the principle of presumption of marriage. He assailed the High Court’s order on the ground that long period of cohabitation between appellant no.1 and deceased, would attract the presumption of the marriage between the parties being legal, as contemplated under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Pertinently, Section 114 of the said Act permits the Court to presume the existence of certain facts which it thinks are likely to have happened in relation to the facts of a particular case. The Counsel relied upon the decisions in the cases of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755, Dhannulal And Others v. Ganeshram And Another (2015) 12 SCC 301 and Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549, to bolster his submissions.On the other hand, Mr. K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the respondents averred that the said marriage cannot be given a legal sanctity on the basis of the subsequent dissolution of the marriage and cohabitation of the deceased and the appellant No. 1 as the same is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Further, ASG also raised the issue of appellant No. 2 and 3, being entitled to the pension. He emphasised on the Regulation 219(iv) of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 to argue that the son of an employee would be eligible for family pension only if he is below the age of 25 years and in the present case, both the appellants have crossed the age of 25 years. Court’s observationsThe issue for adjudication of the Court was whether the appellants would be entitled to claim pensionary benefits of Late Subedar Bhave. The Court noted that it is no longer res integra that if a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long duration, one can draw a presumption in their favour that they were living together as a consequence of a valid marriage. This presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. To support the said observation, Court placed its reliance upon catena of judgments including in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 527, wherein it was held: “…..where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.”Elucidating the same, the Court opined: “It is true that there would be a presumption in favour of the wedlock if the partners lived together for a long spell as husband and wife, but, the said presumption is rebuttable though heavy onus is placed on the one who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin to prove that no marriage had taken place (refer: Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and ...

Law Presumes Marriage When Man & Woman Cohabits For Long Time : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Law Presumes Marriage When Man & Woman Cohabits For Long Time : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers