Telangana High Court
Dr. V.Anand Kumar vs M.Viswa Bharathi on 7 June, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P. Sree Sudha
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
+ FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.258, 291 AND 312 OF 2011
% Delivered on:07.06.2024
Between:
# Dr.V.Anandkumar ..Appellant
Vs.
$ M.Viswa Bharathi .. Respondent
! For the Appellant : Sri A.Suryanarayana
Ld. Counsel
^ For Respondent : Mr. K.S.Murthy,Ld.Sr.Counsel
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. (2009) 9 SCC 299
2. 2024 INSC 355
3. HARMAN, WILLIAM. "THE HINDU MARRIAGE AS
SOTERIOLOGICAL EVENT." International Journal of Sociology
of the Family, vol. 17, no.2, 1987, pp.169-82
4. 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51
5. (1994) 1 SCC 460
6. (1952) 1 SCC 713
7. (2010) 9 SCC 209
8. AIR 1977 AP 152
9. AIR 1929 PC 135
10.1996(7) SCC 681
11.2005 (2) SCC 244
12.2008 (4) SCC 520
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.258, 291 AND 312 OF 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The lis involved in all the three appeals and
parties are one and the same, therefore, they were heard
together and decided by way of this common judgment.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
common order and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed in
O.S.No.167 of 2002, O.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O.S. No.13 of
1999) and O.P.No.1248 of 2010 (O.P.No.182 of 1998) by the
Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, the
appellant/husband preferred these appeals against the
respondent/wife and children as follows:
i) The respondent/wife has filed a petition under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide
O.P.No.182 of 1998 (New O.P.No.1248 of 2010)
against the appellant/husband seeking restitution of
conjugal rights. Likewise, the respondent/wife and her
two sons filed a suit vide O.S.No.13 of 1999 (New
O.P.No.1246 of 2010 against the appellant/husband
under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming an amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance.
ii) The appellant/husband has also filed a suit
vide O.S.No.167 of 2002 seeking to declare the
marriage certificate dated 13.09.1991 of the parties is
not valid, there is no matrimonial status between
them and also to declare that the respondent/wife is
not entitled to claim any benefit of matrimonial status
as wife.
4. Vide common order dated 16.03.2011, the
learned Family Court, dismissed O.S.No.167 of 2002 and
allowed O.P.No.1246 of 2010 granting an amount of
Rs.3,000/- each per month to the wife and two children
from 09.03.1999 to February, 2011 towards maintenance.
Learned Family Judge held that Spandan, son of the
appellant and the respondent, has become major, therefore,
he is not entitled for maintenance from March, 2011.
Learned Family Court directed the appellant to deposit a
sum of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the respondent/wife
and Surya (till her marriage is performed) from March,
2011 on or before 10th day of every month regularly.
Considering the fact that the appellant salary was
enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month, learned Family Court
held that respondent/wife is entitled for maintenance at the
rate of Rs.5,000/- per month life-long. The maintenance
amount already paid shall be deducted from total arrears of
maintenance.
5. Vide the said common order, learned Family
Court allowed O.P.No.1248 of 2010 filed by the respondent
/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights directing the
appellant/husband to take respondent to his company
within two months from the said order.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order in
O.P.No.1248 of 2010, the appellant/husband has filed
F.C.A. No.258 of 2011, in O.P.No.1246 of 2010, he filed
F.C.A. No.291 of 2011 and in O.S.No.167 of 2002, he
preferred F.C.A. No.312 of 2011. It is relevant to note that
in the aforesaid appeals there is no interim order.
7. The contentions/pleadings of the wife in counter,
written statement and petitions in the above said Ops are
as follows:
i) Her marriage with the appellant was performed
on 13.09.1991 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Guntur. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage
was consummated and they were blessed with two
sons i.e. Spandan and Surya. Immediately, after the
marriage, they shifted their residence to
Mahabubnagar where the appellant used to work in
P.G.College as Lecturer. The appellant met with an
accident and his leg was fractured. He was completely
bed ridden for four months. With the sincere efforts of
the respondent/wife even sacrificing her practice as
an Advocate, he recovered. She also borrowed an
amount of Rs.50,000/- to meet his medical and other
expenditure.
ii) In January, 1992, they shifted their residence
to Malakpet, Hyderabad, as the appellant secured job
in Koti Women's College, Hyderabad. When she was
pregnant, she was forced to abort her pregnancy. With
the help of her parents, she gave birth to her first
child. They were allotted a quarter in the campus of
Osmania University where their second child was
born. The appellant used to suspect her character
when she spoke with any male person and that the
appellant used to maintain illicit relationship with
several women and thereby caused mental agony to
her.
iii) Letters written by Dr.Ramana to the
respondent are opened by the appellant and circulated
the photocopies of the same to his friends, who
admonished him as the letters contain nothing
suspicious. When she was pregnant second time being
afraid of the appellant behavior, she did not go to the
house of her parents. When she requested him to call
her parents atleast at the time of hospitalization for
which he refused to do so. She was forced to conduct
mediation to pacify the issue.
iv) In March, 1996 in the Mediation held by Sri
Vara Vara Rao, Sri Laxman, Sri C.S.R.Prasad, Sri
Nageshwar Rao and Sri Ravichandra, they found fault
with the behavior of the appellant towards the
respondent/wife and directed him to pay an amount
of Rs.4,000/- per month towards her maintenance
and they have also cautioned him to change his
behavior. Even then, he has demanded the
respondent to give divorce. Once again, mediation was
held, but in vain. For the welfare of her children, she
is always ready and willing to join him despite his
adamant behavior. He neglected the respondent and
her two children. He is working as lecturer/reader/
professor and drawing salary. She was doing a clerical
job and she was earning a meager salary of
Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereby, she
sought an amount of Rs.15,000/- in all towards
maintenance for her and her two children. She filed
the aforesaid petition under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal
rights.
8. Whereas, the appellant has filed the aforesaid
O.S.No.167 of 2002 seeking to declare his marriage with
the respondent as not valid, she is not entitled to claim any
benefit of matrimonial status as wife.
9. In the aforesaid two petitions i.e. O.P.No.1248 of
2010 and O.P.No.1246 of 2010 and in plaint vide
O.S.No.167 of 2002, the appellant has contended as
follows:
i) He has completed his M.Com in the year 1980
and PhD in Commerce in Kakatiya University,
Warangal, in 1988. He joined Osmania University as
Lecturer in commerce and he has been posted to PG
College, Secunderabad. In 1990, he transferred to
OUPG Center, Mahabubnagar, and he worked there
till March, 1992. From April, 1992 to 1996 till filing of
the suit, he was working at Nizam College, Hyderabad.
ii) While he was working at Mahabubnagar in the
year 1991, one Mr.D.Rajendra Prasad introduced the
respondent to him at Guntur as a Civil Liberties
Activist and as an Advocate. She was also working for
Women's Organization affiliated to Leftist political
party at Guntur. He belongs to 'Medara' by caste
(backward class community), hails from a very poor
family and his old aged parents are depended on him.
The respondent belongs to 'Kamma' Community
(forward class) and hails from a rich family.
Subsequently, the respondent developed friendship
with the appellant and she often used to visit his
house at Mahabubnagar and used to discuss about
social problems. The appellant and the respondent in
due course accepted their ideas and views, and they
decided to lead friendly companionship. The
respondent has strong views against the institution of
Hindu Marriage and made it clear about the same to
the appellant. Hence, they preferred to lead their lives
as friendly companionship life in future.
iii) The respondent being an advocate had a long
discussion with the appellant about "friendship and
companionship" and its legal implications and all
these discussions were culminated into the idea of
"living together as friends and companions" rather
than "living together as a legally wedded couple" in
future. Both the appellant and respondent have
decided to translate the said idea of "friendship and
companionship" into a reality.
iv) In the light of the aforesaid idea of 'friendship
and companionship', the respondent conveniently
fixed a date as 13.09.1991 to take oath in the
presence of friends and well-wishers with an intention
to give effect to the idea of "friendship and
companionship". She was a resident of Guntur and
she has chosen Guntur as a convenient venue and
made arrangements for a small gathering of friends
and well-wishers. For this gathering neither the
respondent nor the appellant has printed any
invitation card nor issued any advertisement to
publish notice in print media to invite the friends and
well-wishers to the said gathering. Thus, both of them
simply informed their friends and well-wishers orally
over telephone to come to Guntur to attend the oath
taking gathering on 13.09.1991.
v) On 13.09.1991 about 25 people have attended
a small get together at Arundalpet, Guntur, where
they made a 'Joint statement' in Telugu language in
the presence of the friends and well-wishers as
follows:
"మే ము వి. ఆనందకుమా ర్, యం . విశ్ వభా రతి ఒకరినొ కరం అర్థ
ం
చేసు కున్ న తరువా త ఈ రో జును ండి జీ విత సహచరులు గా కలిసి
ఉం డటా నికి నిర్ణ
య ి ంచు కొ న్ నా ం. మా ఉద
్ద
ే శ్ య
ా లను ఒకరినొ కరం
గౌ రవి ంచు కుOటూ. ప్రజా స్వా మి కంగా కలసి జీ విస
్త
ా మని ప్రజా ము ఖంగా
మీ అం దరి ము ందు ప్రతిజ
్ ఞచేస
్తున్ నా ం.
సం/- సం/-
13/9/91
యం . విశ్ వభా రతి వి. ఆనందకుమా ర్
The translated English version of the above said statement is as
follows:
WE V.ANAND KUMAR AND M.VISWA BHARATHI AFTER
MUTUAL UNDERSTAND OF EACH OTHER WE HAVE
DECIDED TO LIVE TOGETHER FROM TODAY ONWARDS AS
COMPANIONS. WE PROMISE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WE
RESPECT EACH OTHER'S IDEAS AND LIVE
DEMOCRATICALLY"
vi) Immediately after making the said Joint-
Statement in Telugu both the appellant and the
respondent have exchanged the garlands with each
other and signed on the said statement in the
presence of the friends and well-wishers. They have
also signed as witnesses to the said statement,
namely, Sri D.Rajendra Prasad and other witnesses
are Sri Venkat Reddy, Sri V.Gangadhar Rao, a
member of polite bureau of C.P.I (M) Party, Sri
A.Dasaratha, Advocate and Sri M.Satyanarayana Rao,
who is the father of the respondent who signed the
said statement. The appellant has handed over the
said statement to the respondent in front of all the
friends after taking a photostat copy of the same.
vii) The respondent being an Advocate has
intentionally avoided the "legal marriage" and
preferred this type of arrangement with the appellant
with a view to give an effect to her idea of "living
together as friends and companions". Absolutely, no
customary rites and ceremonies as per Hindu Law
were observed in any manner either before or at the
time of executing the said statement. The said
statement was not executed under any law of the land
and it was also not registered under any law of the
land in force. They have voluntarily made the said
joint statement with a mutual and free consent and
free will. It was a voluntary union of the appellant
with the respondent without any responsibility and
liability of whatsoever may be towards each other. The
said statement did not contain any promise for
tomorrow on any pretext under any law of the land.
viii) Ever since from the date of executing the
said statement on 13.09.1991, the respondent never
stayed regularly with the appellant. Whenever she
needed money, she used to come to him and she used
to stay for few days like a guest. She used to leave his
company borrowing some money. The said practice
has continued till October, 1995. She used to collect
the said money on the pretext that she has been
working with Women's Organizations affiliated to
leftist political parties at Guntur.
ix) In October, 1995 the respondent left the
company of the appellant by brining the said
statement dated 13.09.1991 to an end orally and
voluntarily and that she never returned back to his
company or to his house. During the said short period
of four years also, she never shared the company of
the appellant regularly and continuously and virtually
remained away from the company of the appellant.
x) Whenever, he requests the respondent to give
company to him, she used to reply very clearly stating
that "I (respondent) am not your wife to oblige you
(appellant)" and "it is only just a statement between
us, which is not legally binding on us in any manner".
After terminating the said statement by the
respondent in October, 1995, she started blackmailing
the appellant for the sake of money and also started
harassing the appellant physically, mentally,
financially etc. She has threatened the appellant
several times to eliminate him physically with the help
of the members belonging to Andhra Pradesh Civil
Liberties Committee (APCLC), Viplava Rachayitala
Sangham (Revolutionary Writers Association), Mahila
Chetana (a Women Organization, affiliated to a Leftist
Political Party), her own political party etc., if the
appellant fails to comply with all the dictates of the
respondent and people belonging to the said
organization besides her own family members.
xi) The respondent with her malafide intentions
and ulterior motives has transformed the friendship
and companionship between the appellant and
respondent into a political one thereby harassing the
appellant in various ways including blackmailing and
threatening the appellant. As a part of it, the
respondent and her own people belonging to 'Mahila
Chetana' published and distributed pamphlets and
posters in the Nizam College against the appellant
where he is working. She also gave interview to press
against the appellant in the year 1997. She has also
initiated series of cases with the help of her own
people belonging to her own association. As a part of
its series of false cases, the respondent filed a suit for
restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant and
a suit for maintenance. Thus, the respondent has
intentionally claiming her matrimonial status as a
legally wedded wife of the appellant by suppressing
the said fact as to the statement to live together as
friends and companions. She has also filed a
complaint against him for the offence under Section
498A of the IPC and after conducting investigation,
the investigating officer laid charge sheet against him.
The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.143 of 1998.
Thus, according to him, he and the respondent did
not marry each other legally on 13.09.1991 under any
law of the land. The said statement and oath taking
was neither covered under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 nor under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or any
other law of the land in force. Therefore, the
respondent cannot claim the benefits, privileges and
rights which are available to a legally wedded wife
under Hindu Law. She cannot claim maintenance.
She cannot play her professional tricks to claim
monetary benefit.
10. The said suit and petition were consolidated,
common evidence was recorded and decided by way of a
common order dated 16.03.2011 which is impugned in the
present appeals.
11. To prove the claim, the husband examined
himself as PW.1 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.20 documents. To
disprove the claim of the appellant and in support of her
claim in the aforesaid two petitions filed seeking restitution
of conjugal rights and maintenance, she examined herself
as RW.1, Sri R.Madhusudan Raju as RW.2, Sri M.Sharat
Babu as RW.3, Sri Vara Vara Rao as RW.4 and Sri
G.Lakshman as RW.5. She has filed Exs.R.1 to R.12.
12. On consideration of the aforesaid evidence both
the oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed
the suit filed by the appellant/husband and allowed the
aforesaid petitions filed by the respondent/wife seeking
restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance.
13. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the
appellant/husband preferred the above said three appeals,
contending as follows:
i) The Family Court failed to see whether the
marriage had taken place as per Hindu customs and
rites. If the marriage is not taken place as per Hindu
rites and customs like saptapadi, seven steps, tying
thali, toeing mettalu etc., are not followed, it cannot
be construed as legal marriage solemnized as per
Hindu rites and customs. In the present case, all
these customary rituals are not observed, as such the
alleged marriage cannot be considered as legal
marriage.
ii) The witnesses who deposed on behalf of the
respondent are planted witnesses to substantiate the
case and they never attended any event, especially at
the time of exchange of garlands.
iii) The respondent in her evidence stated that
the marriage was performed according to Hindu
customs and rites at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Guntur, on 13.09.1991, but no piece of document is
filed to substantiate the same, and no witness has
spoken about the same.
iv) The Family Court did not believe his version
despite appellant filing number of documents
including Ex.P.10-Pelli Pramanalu etc.
v) The respondent deserted the company of the
appellant way back in the year 1993 and to take
revenge against him, she filed criminal case against
him which ended in acquittal. She also filed O.P.
Nos.1246 and 1248 of 2010 way back in the year
1999.
vi) In all the documents i.e. Exs.P.1 to P.5, P.11,
P.12 etc., nowhere the name of the appellant is shown
as father of the children, which clearly shows that the
appellant is not the father of her children nor that he is
legal husband of the respondent. The said aspects were
discussed by the Family Court.
vii) To decree the application for restitution of
conjugal rights, it has to be proved that the appellant
had discarded the respondent. In the present case, the
respondent miserably failed to prove that he deserted
her. As there is no marriage at all between them, the
question of granting conjugal rights does not arise.
viii) When there is no legal marriage, the questions
of paying maintenance to the respondent does not arise.
ix) The Family Court erred in not recording evidence
separately in all the cases, instead clubbed the entire
evidence, since the cause of action, facts and reliefs are
separate and distinct. Therefore, the impugned order is
self-contradictory, Thus, learned Family Court
committed procedural irregularity.
x) The application filed for maintenance is not
maintainable for the reason that, to maintain an
application under Section 18 of the Act, there must be
legal marriage between the wife and husband.
14. Whereas, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent/wife contended that on
consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family Court
passed the common order and there is no error in it. The
appellant intentionally disputed the marriage and the
paternity of the children with malafide intention to avoid
maintenance and other obligations cast upon him. The
learned Family Court gave specific finding with regard to
marriage, birth of the children and also his income source.
Therefore, it is well reasoned order and there is no error in
it.
15. Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent made their submissions
extensively. Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel has
placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and other Courts in the following judgments:
i) Seema v. K.S.Jayagopal; ii) Ravindra Sukhdev
Ghadge v. Swati Ravindra Ghadge; iii) Balram Yadav v.
Fulmaniya Yadav; iv) Sri Kante Purnachander v.
Smt.Kante Sumalath; v) Sherly v. Sukumari Amma; vi)
Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Dir. Health Services,
Haryana; vii) Against order dated 13.01.2015; viii)
Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree; ix) Dawalsab v. Khajasab;
x) Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University;
xi) M/s.Embassy Property v. The State of Karnataka;
xii) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal; xiii) Ms.
G.Sijala v. M.Prabhu; xiv) Suguna (deceased) v. Radha;
xv) Smt. Channamma v. Sri Bellappa; xvi) Mousami
Chakraborthy v. Subrata Guha Roy; xvii) R.Anita
Marginic v. R.Annadurai, xviii) Vinit Kumar Behl v.
Smt. Ruchi; xix) Veena Rani v. Jagadish Mitter Mohan;
xx) Jaipal v. Surbhi; xxi) Manjeet Singh v. Parson Kaur;
xxii) Arun Kumar Bedi v. Anjana Bedi; xxiii) Abbayolla
M.Subba Reddy v. Padmamma; xxiv) Sabera Begum v.
G.M.Ansari; xxv) Popat and Kotecha Property v. State
Bank of India Staff; xxvi) Manmeet Kour v. Harmeet
Kour; xxvii) A.Gunna Rao v. Tara Beharani; xxviii)
Pandit Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra; xxix)
Ajay Kr. Goshal Etc v. State of Bihar and xxix)
B.N.Kamalanabha Reddy v. Mnivenkatappa
16. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on Challamma v. Tilaga1.
17. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal
that according to the appellant/husband it is not a valid
marriage between the appellant and respondent and it is
only an exchange of garlands. They have also made a joint
statement. The necessary and relevant ceremonies like
saptapadi seven steps, tying thali, toeing mettelu etc., as
per Hindu Law were not performed. Therefore, it is not a
valid marriage as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Thus, he is disputing the very marriage itself. He is
also disputing the birth of children. According to him, the
respondent and her children are not entitled for
maintenance and he sought to declare the said marriage is
not valid, the respondent is not entitled to claim any benefit
for matrimonial status as wife.
(2009) 9 SCC 299
18. In the light of aforesaid contentions, it is relevant
to note that the appellant/husband has filed the aforesaid
suit vide O.S.No.167 of 2002 under Order VII Rules 1 and
2, Section 26 read with Order XXXIIA Rule 2A of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and read with Section 7(b) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984. The said suit was filed on
20.11.2002 before the Family Court, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
19. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals
with jurisdiction and the same is reproduced for better
appreciation of case. The object of the said Family Courts
Act, 1984 is to provide for the establishment of Family
Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure
speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and
family affairs and for maters connected therewith.
20. In the counter filed by the appellant/husband in
O.P.No.1246 of 2010 and O.P.No.1248 of 2010, he
contended that he was always incurring unwanted
expenditure either for marriage or for any other purpose.
The respondent has no inclination towards dowry. Because
of such principle and due to intervention of friend of the
respondent, who was the person instrumental in arranging
his marriage with the respondent as he was known to her.
At the instance of the appellant, he along with the said
person went to Guntur. After formal discussions with the
respondent and after putting forth his ideology to the
respondent with regard to the marriage, after her
acceptance, he agreed to marry the respondent. As per the
understanding as agreed, there was no much fanfare for
the marriage nor there was any such necessity for incurring
expenditure for the marriage. In the presence of friends and
also the parents of the respondent, he married the
respondent by exchanging garlands and no other
ceremonies as per Hindu rites and customs were performed
for the marriage. It was totally a simple marriage. Marriage
was performed in such a simple fashion, as such the
question of the parents of the respondent presenting the
household articles and presentations etc., does not arise.
Even his parents were against performing his marriage in
such a simple fashion without following the customs and
rites. In the marriage a simple letter was executed between
him and respondent on 13.09.1991 and the marriage was
so simply performed even there was no occasion to tie
"pasupu thadu" upon the respondent. It is under such
ideology, the marriage was performed.
21. It is further contended by him after the marriage
as he was doing job at Mahabubnagar as lecturer in
P.G.College, he got himself set up the family at the said
place. Thus, in unequivocal terms he has stated with
regard to the performance of marriage in the said counter
and plaint filed by him in the said suit.
22. Though he contended that he met the
respondent through a common friend i.e. Sri Rajendra
Prasad, he failed to examine the said Sri Rajendra Prasad,
as witness. He has also contended that Sri E.Venkat Reddy,
Sri V.Gangadhara Rao, members of polite bureau and Sri
Dasaratha signed the said statement dated 13.09.1991, he
failed to examine any of them.
23. The appellant contended that there is no valid
marriage between him and the respondent as per Hindu
customs and rites and no ceremonies such as Sapthapadi,
tying of thali and toeing of mettalu were performed.
Therefore, his marriage with the respondent is not a valid
marriage and it is not a marriage as per the Hindu customs
and rites.
24. Whereas, according to the respondent/wife, the
said marriage is an arranged marriage, performed on
13.09.1991 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam in the
presence of elders and well-wishers. Therefore, burden lies
on the appellant to prove the same by producing legally
acceptable evidence. In the present case, except making flat
denial and bald allegations in the plaint in the aforesaid
suit and counters, he failed to prove the same. Thus, he
failed to discharge his burden.
25. It is relevant to note that in a recent Judgment
dated 19.04.2024 in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar
Chanchal2, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to
deal with valid marriage in accordance with Section 7,
necessary ceremonies as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 etc.
Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
"Section 7 of the Act reads as under:
"7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.--(1) A Hindu
marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the
customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2)
Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi
(that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the
bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes
complete and binding when the seventh step is taken."
Section 7 of the Act speaks about ceremonies of a Hindu
marriage. Sub-section (1) uses the word "solemnised". The word
"solemnised" means to perform the marriage with ceremonies in
proper form. Unless and until the marriage is performed with
appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be
7 "solemnised". Further, sub-section (2) of Section 7 states that
where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi, i.e., the
taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly
before the sacred fire, the marriage becomes complete and
binding when the seventh step is taken. Therefore, requisite
ceremonies for the solemnisation of the Hindu marriage must be
in accordance with the applicable customs or usage and where
saptapadi has been adopted, the marriage becomes complete
2024 INSC 355
and binding when the seventh step is taken. Where a Hindu
marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable
rites or ceremonies such as saptapadi when included, the
marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage. In other
words, for a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite
ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of
performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy
arise. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there
would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act
and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence
of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would
neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a
marriage under Hindu law.
Section 8 of the Act reads as under:
"8. Registration of Hindu marriages.--(1) For the
purpose of facilitating the proof of Hindu marriages, the
State Government may make rules providing that the
parties to any such marriage may have the particulars
relating to their marriage entered in such manner and
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in a Hindu
Marriage Register kept for the purpose.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), the State Government may, if it is of opinion
that it is necessary or expedient so to do, provide that the
entering of the particulars referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be compulsory in the State or in any part thereof,
whether in all cases or in such cases as may be specified,
and where any such direction has been issued, any person
contravening any rule made in this behalf shall be
punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five
rupees.
(3) All rules made under this section shall be laid
before the State Legislature, as soon as may be, after they
are made.
(4) The Hindu Marriage Register shall at all
reasonable times be open for inspection, and shall be
admissible as evidence of the statements therein contained
and certified extracts therefrom shall, on application, be
given by the Registrar on payment to him of the prescribed
fee.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, the validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way
be affected by the omission to make the entry."
Under Section 8 of the Act, it is open for two Hindus
married under the provisions of the Act to have their marriage
registered provided they fulfil the conditions laid down therein
regarding performance of requisite ceremonies. It is only when
the marriage is solemnised in accordance with Section 7, there
can be a marriage registered under Section 8. The State
Governments have the power to make rules relating to the
registration of marriages between two Hindus solemnised by way
of requisite ceremonies. The advantage of registration is that it
facilitates proof of factum of marriage in a disputed case.
But if there has been no marriage in accordance with
Section 7, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the
marriage. We find that the registration of Hindu marriages under
the said provision is only to facilitate the proof of a Hindu
marriage but for that, there has to be a Hindu marriage in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act inasmuch as there must be
a marriage ceremony which has taken place between the parties
in accordance with the said provision. Although the parties may
have complied with the requisite conditions for a valid Hindu
marriage as per Section 5 of the Act in the absence of there
being a "Hindu marriage" in accordance with Section 7 of the
Act, i.e., solemnization of such a marriage, there would be no
Hindu marriage in the eye of law. In the absence of there being a
valid Hindu marriage, the Marriage Registration Officer cannot
register such a marriage under the provisions of Section 8 of the
Act. Therefore, if a certificate is issued stating that the couple
had undergone marriage and if the marriage ceremony had not
been performed in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, then the
registration of such marriage under Section 8 would not confer
any legitimacy to such a marriage. The registration of a marriage
under Section 8 of the Act is only to confirm that the parties
have undergone a valid marriage ceremony in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act. In other words, a certificate of 11 marriage
is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a
marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no
marriage ceremony performed at all.
We further observe that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament
and has a sacred character. In the context of saptapadi in a
Hindu marriage, according to Rig Veda, after completing the
seventh step (saptapadi) the bridegroom says to his bride, "With
seven steps we have become friends (sakha). May I attain to
friendship with thee; may I not be separated from thy
friendship". A wife is considered to be half of oneself (ardhangini)
but to be accepted with an identity of her own and to be a co-
equal partner in the marriage. There is nothing like a "better-
half" in a marriage but the spouses are equal halves in a
marriage. In Hindu Law, as already noted, marriage is a
sacrament or a samskara. It is the foundation for a new family.
With the passage of centuries and the enactment of the
Act, monogamy is the only legally approved form of relationship
between a husband and a wife. The Act has categorically
discarded polyandry and polygamy and all other such types of
relationships. The intent of the Parliament is also that there
should be only one form of marriage having varied rites and
customs and rituals. Thus, when the Act came into force on
18.05.1955, it has amended and codified the law relating to 12
marriage among Hindus. The Act encompasses not only Hindus
as such but Lingayats, Brahmos, Aryasamajists, Buddhists,
Jains and Sikhs also who can enter into a valid Hindu marriage
coming within the expansive connotation of the word Hindu.
Section 4 of the Act is important and it gives an overriding
effect to the Act and it repeals all existing laws whether in the
shape of enactments, custom or usage inconsistent with the Act.
Of course, the said Section also saves anything otherwise
expressly provided under the Act. For immediate reference,
Section 4 of the Act is extracted as under:
"4. Overriding effect of the Act.- Save as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act,- (a) any text, rule or
interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part
of that law in force immediately before the commencement
of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any
matte for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other
law in force immediately before the commencement of this
Act shall cease to have effect insofar as it is inconsistent
with any of the provisions contained in this Act."
In effect a union of two persons under the provisions of
the Act, by way of a Hindu marriage gives them the status and
character of being a husband and wife in society. The said status
is of significance inasmuch as a man and a woman cannot be
treated as a husband and a wife unless a marriage is performed
or celebrated with proper and due ceremonies and in the
prescribed form. In the absence of any solemnisation of a 13
marriage as per the provisions of the Act, a man and a woman
cannot acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each
other. In the above context, we deprecate the practice of young
men and women seeking to acquire the status of being a
husband and a wife to each other and therefore purportedly
being married, in the absence of a valid marriage ceremony
under the provisions of the Act such as in the instant case where
the marriage between the parties was to take place later.
No doubt, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a man
and a woman can acquire the status of being a husband and a
wife as per the provisions of the said Act. The Special Marriage
Act, 1954 is not restricted to Hindus. Any man and woman
irrespective of their race, caste or creed can acquire the status of
being a husband and a wife under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 but under the provisions of the Act (Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955), there should not only be compliance of the
conditions as prescribed under Section 5 of the said Act but also
the couple must solemnise a marriage in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act. In the absence of there being any such
marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, a certificate
issued in that regard by any entity is of no legal consequence.
Further, any registration of a marriage which has not at all
taken place under Section 8 of the Act and as per the rules made
14 by the State Government would not be evidence of a Hindu
marriage and also does not confer the status of a husband and a
wife to a couple.
In recent years, we have come across several instances
where for "practical purposes", a man and a woman with the
intention of solemnisation of their marriage at a future date seek
to register their marriage under Section 8 of the Act on the basis
of a document which may have been issued as proof of
'solemnisation of their marriage' such as in the instant case. As
we have already noted, any such registration of a marriage
before the Registrar of Marriages and a certificate being issued
thereafter would not confirm that the parties have 'solemnised' a
Hindu marriage. We note that parents of young couples agree for
registration of a marriage in order to apply for Visa for
emigration to foreign countries where either of the parties may
be working "in order to save time" and pending formalising a
marriage ceremony. Such practices have to be deprecated. What
would be the consequence, if no such marriage is solemnised at
all at a future date? What would be the status of the parties
then? Are they husband and wife in law and do they acquire
such status in society?
As already noted, a Hindu marriage is a samskara and a
sacrament which has to be accorded its status as an institution
15 of great value in Indian society. Children born out of a valid
Hindu marriage are legitimate and therefore they have full rights
in law. This is not an occasion for us to discuss about the
vulnerability of illegitimate children born outside wedlock who
yearn for status equal to legitimate children in society.
Therefore, we urge young men and women to think deeply about
the institution of marriage even before they enter upon it and as
to how sacred the said institution is, in Indian society. A
marriage is not an event for 'song and dance' and 'wining and
dining' or an occasion to demand and exchange dowry and gifts
by undue pressure leading to possible initiation of criminal
proceedings thereafter. A marriage is not a commercial
transaction. It is a solemn foundational event celebrated so as to
establish a relationship between a man and a woman who
acquire the status of a husband and wife for an evolving family
in future which is a basic unit of Indian society. A Hindu
marriage facilitates procreation, consolidates the unit of family
and solidifies the spirit of fraternity within various communities.
After all, a marriage is sacred for it provides a lifelong, dignity-
affirming, equal, consensual and healthy union of two
individuals. It is considered to be an event that confers salvation
upon the individual especially when the rites and 16 ceremonies
are conducted 3. The customary ceremonies, with all its
attendant geographical and cultural variations is said to purify
and transform the spiritual being of an individual.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 solemnly acknowledges
both the material and spiritual aspects of this event in the
married couple's lives. Besides providing a mechanism for
registration of marriages in order to confer the status of a
married couple and acknowledge rights in personam and rights
in rem, a special place is given to rites and ceremonies in the
Act. It follows that the critical conditions for the solemnizing of a
Hindu marriage should be assiduously, strictly and religiously
followed. This is for the reason that the genesis of a sacred
process cannot be a trivial affair. The sincere conduct of and
participation in the customary rites and ceremonies under
Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ought to be ensured
by all married couples and priests who preside over the
ceremony.
The promises made to each by the parties to a Hindu
marriage and the oath taken by them to remain friends forever
lay the foundation for a life-long commitment between the
spouses which should be realized by them. If such commitment
to each other is adhered to by the couple, then there would be
far fewer cases of breakdown of marriages leading to divorce or
separation."
HARMAN, WILLIAM. "THE HINDU MARRIAGE AS SOTERIOLOGICAL
EVENT." International Journal of Sociology of the Family, vol. 17, no.2,
1987, pp.169-82
26. In the light of the aforesaid principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case
on hand, as discussed supra, though the appellant/
husband disputed the marriage, he failed to produce any
evidence both oral and documentary except pelli pramanam
Ex.P.10. On the other hand, the respondent/wife has filed
Exs.R.1, R.2 marriage photo, Ex.R.3 copies of marriage
photos. She has also examined RWs.2 to 5, elders/well-
wishers who are known to each other and participated in
the said marriage. Thus, on consideration of the entire
evidence only, learned Family Court dismissed the suit filed
by the appellant/husband and allowed the original
petitions filed by the respondent/wife seeking restitution of
conjugal rights and seeking maintenance.
27. Learned Family Court referred pleadings, chief-
examination and admissions made by the Appellant during
his cross-examination. He has admitted that the appellant
shifted to Osmania University campus i.e., F-28 quarters
from Malakpet and the respondent gave birth to first child
on 07.1.1993 and second child was born on 02.06.1994 in
Guntur. He has admitted that on one occasion the birthday
of his son was celebrated by him. As they are living
separately, he did not share any responsibility of his
children as they are in the custody of the respondent.
28. Learned Family Court also took note of the fact
that the appellant did not specifically deny the contentions
of the respondent/wife that the marriage was
consummated and they were blessed with two children i.e.,
Spandan and Surya. The learned Family Court also gave a
specific finding that in a matter like this, the appellant is
not fair in his pleadings by pleading that he has no
children.
29. Learned Family Court also recorded in the
common order observed that the appellant in his counter in
O.P.No.182 of 1998 (New O.P.No.1248 of 2010) stated that
on 10.12.1998 the respondent in the seventh month of her
pregnancy, without informing him went away to the house
of her parents. He has not stated that he never gave birth
to the two children.
30. Learned Family Court also referred the counter
filed by the appellant in O.P.No.182 of 1998 wherein it was
stated that irrespective of that he was making peace with
the respondent by believing that one day or the other the
respondent will resolve all her marital obligations. Thus, he
accepted the marriage. He has also further stated that the
respondent at the time of her second delivery, went to her
parents house and failed to return back for nearly six
months and, at the instance, he went to the house of her
parents and stayed there for his day-to-day livelihood and
subsequently on his persistent requests respondent
returned back and stayed for some time.
31. Referring to the said pleadings, learned Family
Court gave a specific finding that the marriage of the
respondent with the appellant was performed on
13.09.1991 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam in the
presence of elders and well-wishers, the appellant failed to
prove his contention that it is not a valid marriage. Learned
Family Court also gave specific finding that the respondent
(RW.1) clearly stated that though at the time of marriage
mangal sutram was tied around her neck, mettelu were
adorned to her toes and now she is wearing mangalsutram
on the date of giving evidence. She has also revealed the
name of purohit as Anjaneyulu, who died in the year 1995
or 1996.
32. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the
appellant having married the respondent gave birth to two
children on 07.01.1993 and 02.06.1994 and after a lapse of
20 years, filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.167 of 2002 to
declare the said marriage as invalid marriage. It is also
relevant to note that he has filed the aforesaid suit after the
respondent filing the aforesaid petitions seeking restitution
of conjugal rights and maintenance.
33. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral
and documentary, learned Family Court gave a specific
finding that the marriage of the appellant with the
respondent is a valid marriage as per Hindu customs and
rites. The appellant failed to discharge his burden and
failed to prove his contention.
34. Learned Family Court also specifically referred
that during cross-examination of the appellant (PW.1) on
24.01.2011 admitted that "It is true in connection with
these three matters parties were referred to DNA test and
report of DNA was received by the learned Family Court.
Expert report of DNA declares that himself (appellant/
husband) and Viswa Bharathi (the respondent/wife) as
parents of Spandan and Surya and the said DNA report
was marked as Ex.C.1 with consent on 03.08.2005.
35. On consideration of the said aspects, learned
Family Court gave specific findings that both the appellant
and the respondent got married. The said marriage was
consummated and they were blessed with aforesaid two
children. The respondent has also filed Ex.R.4 tuition fee
and study certificate of Spandan, Ex.R.11 is birth
certificate of Surya and Ex.R.12 certificate of birth of son of
Anand Kumar and Viswa Bharati. Therefore, the appellant
cannot plead or contend that his marriage with the
respondent is not a valid marriage and was not blessed
with two children.
36. On consideration of the evidence and the fact
that the appellant was working as reader in Osmania
University and getting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per
month, the learned Family Court has granted the aforesaid
amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent life-long towards
maintenance.
37. It is not in dispute that Spandan and Surya were
born on 07.01.1993 and 02.06.1994 respectively and now
they are aged about 31 and 32 years respectively and both
of them are majors. They are not entitled for maintenance.
Further, they are entitled for arrears of maintenance in
pursuance of the impugned common order dated
16.03.2011. If the said arrears of maintenance are not yet
paid, liberty is granted to them to take steps in accordance
with law to recover the same from the appellant herein. The
respondent being the legally wedded wife is also entitled for
maintenance in terms of the common order and if the
appellant failed to comply with the same, the respondent is
at liberty to claim the same by way of appropriate legal
remedy. In view of the fact that the impugned common
order is well reasoned order, it does not warrant any
interference of this Court in the present appeals.
38. As discussed supra, the appellant having
married the respondent on 13.09.1991 claiming that it was
only friendly companionship. It is a tricky contention taken
by him. The said contention was also considered by the
learned Family Court.
39. It is also recorded that the appellant/husband
filed C.M.A.No.1581 of 2001 and F.C.A.No.187 of 2005. The
respondent/wife filed C.R.P.No.143 of 2007. He filed the
aforesaid C.M.A.No.1581 of 2001 dated 02.05.2001 in
O.P.No.182 of 1998 (new O.P.No.1248 of 2010) by Family
Court whereby the petition filed by the respondent/wife
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking
restitution of conjugal rights was also allowed.
F.C.A.No.187 of 2005 was filed by the appellant/husband
against the Judgment dated 17.08.2005 in O.P.No.13 of
1999 filed by the wife and her two children under Sections
18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956 and granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month
each, from the date of filing the suit.
40. The respondent filed an interlocutory application
vide I.A.No.928 of 2005 seeking to condone the delay of 97
days in filing the application to set aside the default order.
The same was dismissed by learned Family Court vide
Order dated 24.08.2006. Challenging the said Order, the
respondent/wife filed the revision C.R.P.No.143 of 2007.
Vide common order dated 20.04.2010, this Court allowed
the C.R.P. as well as C.M.A. and F.C.A. by setting aside the
impugned orders therein. The matters were remanded back
to the Family Court, Hyderabad, for a joint trial and
disposal along with O.S.No.167 of 2002. This Court also
directed the husband to pay the maintenance at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the each of the children
till they attain majority. This Court also directed the
learned Family Court to decide the aforesaid matters
uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court
and dispose of the said three cases within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
41. Mr.A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant would contend that the learned Family
Court did not conduct joint trial in compliance with the
said Order and thus there is violation of the said order
dated 20.04.2010 passed by this Court in CMA No.158 of
2001 and batch. According to him, this Court directed the
learned Family Court to conduct joint trial. As discussed
supra, this Court directed the learned Family Court to
conduct a joint trial and dispose of the said O.Ps. along
with O.S.No.167 of 2002. This Court never directed the
learned Family Court to conduct de novo enquiry as
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
42. Learned counsel would further contend that the
respondent failed to prove the paternity and in the birth
certificate filed by her, the name of the appellant is not
mentioned as father. Thus, according to Sri
A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant the
respondent failed to discharge her burden and failed to
prove her marriage and children were born to them. As
discussed supra, on consideration of pleadings and
evidence of PW.1 as well as Ex.C.1 DNA report and birth
certificates, the learned Family Court gave specific findings.
Thus, the said findings are well reasoned and well founded.
In fact, the appellant herein failed to make out any case to
interfere with the reasoned findings.
43. 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. The
question, in which circumstances, the Court can draw
presumption as to legality of the marriage was succinctly
explained by Mulla Book on Hindu Law 22nd Edition, page
645 under heading "Presumption as to legality of marriage"
in the following words:-
"435. Presumption as to legality of marriage - Where it is
proved that a marriage was performed in fact, the court will
presume that it is valid in law, and that the necessary
ceremonies have been performed. A Hindu marriage is
recognised as a valid marriage in English law.
Presumption as to marriage and legitimacy - there is an
extremely strong presumption in favour of the validity of a
marriage and the legitimacy of its offspring, if from the time
of the alleged marriage, the parties are recognised by all
persons concerned as man and wife and are so described in
important documents and on important occasions. The like
presumption applies to the question whether the formal
requisites of a valid marriage ceremony were satisfied.
Similarly, the fact that a woman was living under the control
and protection of a man, who generally lived with her and
acknowledged her children, raises a strong presumption
that she is the wife of that man. However, this presumption
may be rebutted by proof of facts showing that no marriage
could have taken place."
This presumption finds support via Section 114 of the
Evidence Act which states as follows:
"114. The Court may presume the existence of any fact
which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to
the common course of natural events, human conduct and
public and private business, in their relation to the facts of
the particular case."
44. In Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Another v.
Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Others,4
the Privy Council observed the following,
".....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."
45. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan
alias AndaliPadayachi and Others5, the Apex Court held
as under:
"4. What has been settled by this Court is that if a man and
woman live together for long years as husband and wife
then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage
existing between the two. But the presumption is
rebuttable(see Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari)"
46. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari alias Usha
Rani6 the Apex Court held :
" 13....Continuous cohabitation of man and woman as
husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number
of years may raise the presumption of marriage.
14....But the presumption which may be drawn from long
cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances
which weaken and destroy that presumption, the court
cannot ignore them."
1927 SCC OnLine PC 51
(1994) 1 SCC 460
(1952) 1 SCC 713
47. In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajnikant7, the Apex
Court held that the live in relationship, if continued for a
long time, cannot be termed as walk in and walk out
relationship and there is a presumption of marriage
between the parties.
48. This Court in Syed Amanullah Hussain and
Ors. Vs. Rajamma and Ors8the parties were
Mohammedan's and the question of presumption of
marriage through long co-habitation arose. In the said case
the marriage between a Hindu women and a Muslim man
was disputed. In the absence of direct evidence to prove the
marriage, the Court relied on presumption of marriage
elucidate in para 10 which is stated as follows
"10. Marriages may be established by direct proof or by
indirect proof, i.e. by presumption drawn from certain
factors. It may be presumed from prolonged cohabitation
combined with other circumstances or from
acknowledgment of legitimacy in favour of a child or the fact
of the acknowledgment by the man of the woman as his
wife. It is true that the presumption does not apply if the
conduct of the parties is inconsistent with the relationship
of husband and wife. But if there is no impediment for a
(2010) 9 SCC 209
AIR 1977 AP 152
lawful marriage, such presumption will be raised by the
aforesaid circumstances. In Abdool Razak v. Aga
Mohomed(1894) 21 Ind App 56 (PC) the Privy Council
observed that if the conduct of the parties were shown to be
compatible with the relation of husband and wife, every
presumption ought to be made in favour of the marriage
when there is lengthened cohabitation. In that case,
however, it was found that the conduct was incompatible
with that relation and, therefore, it was held that the
presumption did not apply. In Ghazanfar v. Kaniz Fatima,
(1910) 37 Ind app 105 (PC), as the woman was a prostitute
before the marriage, the court refused to draw the
presumption. But normally, cohabitation for a long time and
living together as husband and wife would raise a
presumption of marriage. As far as legitimacy of the child is
concerned, it may be presumed from circumstances from
which the marriage itself between its parents may be
presumed."
49. The doctrine factum valet quod fieri non debuit,
which means "a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts",
would apply in such a situation. Though, a Hindu marriage
is a sacrament and has great importance in Indian Society,
yet, when two parties who are in a domestic relationship
and cohabit together and conduct themselves in a manner
which is in the nature of marriage, it shall be construed as
such.
50. It is relevant to note that in Mohabbat Ali Khan
v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan 9, it was held that law presumes in
AIR 1929 PC 135
favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man
and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of
years, the presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of
the Evidence Act, 1872. A presumption of a valid marriage
although rebuttable one, it is for the other party to
establish the same. The said principle was also laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex court in Ranganath Parmeshwar
Panditrao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni10 and
Sobha Hymavathi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy11and the
said presumption voluntarily raised having regard to the
Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
51. As discussed supra, the law infers a presumption
favourably towards the institution of marriage when any
couple have continuously cohabitated for a long spell.
However, such presumption can be controverted be
controverting party but heavy onus lies on the person. The
presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on
the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal
1996(7) SCC 681
2005 (2) SCC 244
origin to prove that no marriage took place. The said
principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Tulsa v.
Durghatiya12 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Challamma
(supra) recorded the said principle.
52. In the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and privy counsel, the Apex Court has
consistently held that law presumes in favour of marriage
and against concubinage, the appellant had disputed the
marriage and therefore the burden heavily lies on him to
prove the same with legally acceptable evidence. In the
present case, the appellant failed to examine any witness.
Except examining himself as PW.1 and filing Ex.P.10, he
did not file any document. Though he contended about the
presence of Sri D.Rajendra Prasad and other witnesses i.e.
Sri Venkat Reddy, Sri V.Gangadhar Rao, a member of polite
bureau of C.P.I (M) Party, Sri A.Dasaratha, Advocate and
Sri M.Satyanarayana Rao, he failed to examine any of
them. Thus, he failed to rebut and discharge his burden.
2008 (4) SCC 520
The said aspects were also considered by learned Family
Court.
53. It is relevant to note that the respondent/wife
disputed her signature in Ex.P.1 statement. But the
appellant heavily relied upon the said statement, therefore,
burden lies on him to prove the respondent signed on the
said statement, whereas, the appellant failed to discharge
his burden. Even he failed to elicit the said aspects from
the evidence of respondent (RW.1) during her cross-
examination as well as from RWs.2 to 5 during their cross-
examination.
54. As discussed supra, learned Family Court on
consideration of the entire evidence both oral and
documentary, passed impugned common order. It is well
reasoned order and well founded. The appellant herein
failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order.
Viewed from any angle, these appeals are devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
55. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in these appeals shall stand closed.
____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
____________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
07th June, 2024
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.
ynk/mrm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.258, 291 AND 312 OF 2011
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
07th June, 2024
Ynk/mrm
