[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Mrs. Dr.Chandika Prabhavathi vs Chandika Sambhasiva Raju (Died) on 30 March, 2026

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT: HYDERABAD

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                        AND
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
          FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2024
                    Date:30.03.2026

Between
xxxxxxxxxxxx                                         .....Appellant
                                  and
xxxxxxxxxxxxx                                     .......Respondent

This Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mrs. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the appellant.

None appears for respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant - wife aggrieved by the

order dated 04.05.2024 passed in OP No.803 of 2005 by the learned

Family Court - cum - XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

3. The appellant - wife filed the aforesaid OP No.803 of 2005

under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act,

1984') and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short, 'the

Act, 1955') initially against respondent No.1 seeking a declaration

that she is his wife and a direction to him to join her conjugal society

with the following contentions:-

i. The appellant and 1st respondent are Hindus by religion. Their

marriage was solemnized on 06.02.1991 by a reputed purohit. It

was love marriage.

ii. After the marriage, she joined marital life and the marriage was

consummated.

iii. She is a Naturapathy Doctor. The 1st respondent - husband was

a Superintending Engineer. He used to come to Chennai once or

twice in a month and stay with the appellant at her parents'

house happily.

iv. Both of them maintained joint savings bank accounts in MCCC

in Chennai and in Vijay Bank Malakpet branch.

v. After retirement, the 1st respondent reduced his visits to

Chennai and he used to visit her once in three months or half an

year. On 06.03.2000, he took the appellant - wife to Hyderabad,

where he was having own house bearing H.No.16-2-674, at

Judges colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad and started living in the

said house.

vi. During the census of 2001, he got the appellant's name and his

name entered in the electoral role of Malakpet constituency.

During her stay at Hyderabad, she came to know that in past, he

was living with some lady, who deserted him within six months

and thereafter, he kept another lady, who had also left for USA,

due to harassment and ill-treatment by him.

vii. Since February 2004, he started harassing the appellant on petty

issues.

viii. He used to instigate his maid servant, her son-in-law and others

saying that she is additional burden to him as he is a pensioner.

He used to abuse her in filthy language for nothing.

ix. On 06.02.2004, he necked her out of the house. Since then, she

resided in a separate house. He got her abused by maid servant

in filthy language, for which she lodged a complaint with the

Police, Chadharghat police station. The police under the

influence of respondent, advised both of them to solve the

matter amicably. But he did not change his attitude.

  x.    He forcibly got her signature on some paper.

 xi.    She is ready to join him.

4. With the said contentions, the appellant - wife sought to

declare her as wife of the 1st respondent and direct him to allow her to

conjugal society.

5. Opposing the said allegations, the respondent filed counter

contending as follows:-

i. He never married the appellant, much less on 06.02.1991. The

documents relied upon by her are not proving their marriage.

ii. When the marriage is not proved, the question of restitution of

conjugal rights does not arise.

iii. He worked as Executive Engineer at Rajhmundry from 1978 to

1981. During the said period, he resided with his wife Smt.

Usha Rani i.e. 2nd respondent and three children by names

Radha Rani, Padma Rani and Naga Rani, at Dhanavaipeta area

of Rajamandry. The appellant's elder sister by name Smt.

Ananth Lakshmi worked under him as Typist and resided in the

same locality along with the appellant and their father. During

the said period, father of the appellant died. On the request of

the appellant's family members, and his wife i.e. 2nd respondent,

he helped the appellant in her education to train up in Kasturiba

Nature Cure Hospital at Shivarampally, Hyderabad and to settle

as a Nature Cure Doctor.

iv. The appellant, taking advantage of his support, filed the above

OP with false allegations to extract his money and properties.

v. There will not be any love or friendship between a teenage girl

and 45 years man. Mere opening of joint savings account in any

bank, cannot create marital relationship between them.

vi. The appellant managed to enter her name in electoral records

and also in censes records, without his knowledge, which do not

establish marital relationship between both of them.

vii. The appellant is well aware that he is having wife i.e. 2nd

respondent and three daughters and presently they are residing

in USA.

viii. When he never married the appellant, the question of leading

matrimonial life with her, does not arise and the appellant has

no cause of action to file the above OP.

ix. He has also filed additional counter reiterating the aforesaid

contentions.

6. With the aforesaid contentions, the 1st respondent - husband

sought to dismiss the petition.

7. To prove her case, the appellant - wife examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Es.P.1 to P.80. The appellant also filed her

additional chief affidavit and documents with an application under

Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and got marked Ex.P.57 to P.80. She has also

relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4.

8. To disprove the case of the appellant, the 1st respondent

examined himself as R.W.1 and his neighbor as R.W.2 and got

marked Exs.R.1 to R.9.

9. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary,

learned Family Court dismissed the said petition holding that the

appellant failed to establish her marriage with respondent No.1 and

divorce between the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the appellant is not

entitled to be declared as the wife of the respondent No.1.

10. It is the case of the appellant that her marriage was

solemnized with the 1st respondent on 06.02.1991. It is a love

marriage. She is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. After

marriage, she joined with the 1st respondent at Madras. 1st respondent

used to work as Superintendent Engineer and worked in several places

of Andhra Pradesh and used to visit Chennai once in three months or

six months. She alleges that he is having contacts with some ladies.

She also alleges that after retirement, she joined with the 1st

respondent at Hyderabad where he abused her in filthy language and

harassed her saying that he is a burden to him at his old age.

11. During pendency of the OP, 1st respondent died and the

appellant impleaded the 2nd respondent, alleging as another wife of the

1st respondent.

12. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he never married the

appellant. While he was working as Executive Engineer at

Rajhmundry from 1978 to 1981, he resided there with his wife Smt.

Usha Rani i.e. 2nd respondent and three children by names Radha

Rani, Padma Rani and Naga Rani, at Dhanavaipeta area of

Rajamandry. The appellant's elder sister by name Smt. Ananth

Lakshmi worked under him as Typist and resided in the same locality.

Since father of the appellant died, on the request of her family

members, he helped the appellant in her education and made her to

settle as a Naturopathy Doctor. The appellant, taking advantage of his

support, filed the above OP with false allegations. It is not believable

that there will be love or friendship between a teenage girl and 45

years man. Mere opening of joint savings account and entering her

name in electoral records and in censes records, without his

knowledge, will not establish any marital relationship. The appellant

is well aware that he is having wife i.e. 2nd respondent and three

daughters. He further contended that when he never married the

appellant, the question of leading matrimonial life with her, does not

arise and she has no cause of action to file the above OP.

13. It is relevant to note that since the 1st respondent died during

pendency of the said OP, learned Family Court dismissed the OP to

the extent of restitution of conjugal life. The appellant had not taken

steps to bring the legal heirs of the 1st respondent on record. Learned

Family Court held that the appellant is not to be declared as wife of

the 1st respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred

FCA No.169 of 2009 and impleaded 2nd respondent vide order dated

07.10.2015 in FCA MP No.388 of 2012. Vide order dated 24.11.2016,

this Court dismissed the said appeal.

14. It is also relevant to note that the appellant filed Review

petition vide FCAMP No.417 of 2017 against FCA No. 169 of 2009.

Vide order dated 03.08.2023, this Court set aside the order dated

07.04.2009 and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal.

Thereafter, the appellant impleaded the respondent No.2 after the

demise of respondent No.1.

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is relevant to

discuss the evidence, both oral and documentary, of the parties. The

appellant examined herself as PW.1 and in her chief - examination,

she reiterated the aforesaid contentions. PW.1 also relied upon several

documents marked as Exs.P1 to P80. Exs.P1, P3, P5, P7, P8, P12 and

P13 - the letters allegedly addressed by the 1st respondent to the

appellant. Ex.P11 is the electoral roll entry. Ex.P15 comprises

photographs of the appellant and the 1st respondent. Ex.P16 and P17

are pass books relating to bank accounts.

16. However, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she

had not filed any proof relating to the ceremonies of marriage such as

Mangala Sutra Dharana, Saptapadi or Panigrahanam. She further

admitted that she does not know the ceremonies that are usually

performed during marriage in her community. She also admitted that

the 1st respondent was already married to one Usha Rani and that they

had three daughters.

17. PW.1 further admitted that after the death of her father,

since their financial condition was weak, the 1st respondent had helped

her in pursuing higher education and in establishing herself as a

Naturopathy Doctor. She also admitted that the 1st respondent had

financially assisted her when she went to England and when she

started her naturopathy clinic.

18. The appellant examined PW.2 who is said to be a Pujari of

Renuka Yellamma Temple. PW.2 deposed that the appellant and the

1st respondent used to visit the temple and perform pujas together as

husband and wife. However, during cross-examination, PW.2

admitted that he had not attended the alleged marriage between the

parties. He further admitted that he assumed that the appellant was the

wife of the 1st respondent because the 1st respondent used to address

her as "Ammagaru".

19. The appellant also examined PW.3 and PW.4 who stated

that they knew the appellant and the 1st respondent as husband and

wife. However, neither of them were witnessed the alleged marriage.

20. On the other hand, the 1st respondent examined himself as

RW.1 and reiterated the aforesaid contentions.

21. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he got

married to 2nd respondent in the year 1966. He got three children out

of their wedlock. He met the appellant in the year 1978 when she was

at 20 years old. He denied his marriage with the appellant after

obtaining divorce from the 2nd respondent. He admitted that there is

joint savings account in his name and the appellant. He admitted that

Ex.P.20 which is a copy of voter identity card and stated that the

photo of the appellant on the voter card is not visible and there are

number of families in the same address.

22. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte in O.P.No.803 of

2005 and even in this case also, there is no representation on her

behalf.

23. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the material available on

record would show that though the appellant made an effort by

producing certain documents, none of the documents establish the

factum of her case, much less her marriage as alleged by her with the

1st respondent. The photographs and bank passbooks also do not

establish that marriage was solemnized between the parties.

24. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss, Section 50 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as follows:

50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.

When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:

Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in

prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

25. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship

of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct of any

person who has special means of knowledge of that relationship is a

relevant fact. Such opinion must be based on the conduct of persons

who, as members of the family or otherwise, have special knowledge

of the relationship.

26. In the present case, the appellant relied upon documents

such as letters, photographs, joint bank accounts and the entry in the

electoral roll to contend that she was treated as the wife of the 1st

respondent. Such material may, at best, indicate the manner in which

the parties were perceived in society and may fall within the ambit of

Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, relating to opinion as to

relationship. However, such material by itself cannot establish a

marriage, particularly when the appellant failed to prove the

performance of essential Hindu marriage ceremonies and when the

evidence on record indicates that the 1st respondent had a prior

subsisting marriage.

27. It is also relevant to note that appellant - PW.1 admitted that

the 1st respondent was already married to respondent No.2 and that

the said marriage was subsisting. The appellant has neither pleaded

nor proved that the 1st respondent had obtained divorce from

respondent No.2 prior to the alleged marriage with her.

28. Ex.P.58 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.P. No.153

of 1973 between the 1st respondent and his wife,

C. Venkatramanamma, decided on 11.10.1974. The said O.P. was

filed by the 1st respondent under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking judicial separation. The marriage between

the 1st respondent and his wife, C. Venkatramanamma, was performed

on 22.02.1964. By order dated 11.10.1974, the learned I Additional

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granted a decree of judicial

separation.

29. The said judgment clearly indicates that the 1st respondent

had a subsisting marriage prior to the alleged marriage with the

appellant. Therefore, the existence of the earlier marriage of the 1st

respondent also weakens the claim of the appellant that she is the

legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent.

30. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.58 indicates that the marriage

between the 1st respondent and his wife, Venkata ramanamma was

subjected only to a decree of judicial separation, which does not

dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Though it

is not relevant to discuss, it is pertinent to note that if the 1st

respondent had contracted another marriage with respondent No.2

during the subsistence of the said marriage with said Venkata

ramanamma, the marriage with 2nd respondent would not be valid in

law. However, this circumstance by itself does not establish the

appellant's claim of marriage with the 1st respondent, particularly in

the absence of evidence showing that a valid marriage was solemnized

between them.

31. The Apex court in Smt. Shiramabai w/o Pundalik Bhave

v. The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps

Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar state1 held as follows:

"It can be discerned from the aforesaid line of decisions that the 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."

32. It is true that law raises a presumption in favour of marriage

when a man and woman lived together for a long period. However,

2023 INSC 744

such presumption is rebuttable. When there are circumstances which

weaken such presumption, Courts ought not to ignore the same.

33. In the present case, the appellant, during the course of cross-

examination, admitted that the 1st respondent had an earlier marriage

with 2nd respondent and had three children through the said marriage.

The documentary evidence placed on record, particularly Ex.P.58,

also indicates that 1st respondent was involved in matrimonial

litigation relating to his earlier marriage with the said Venkata

ramanamma. However, the appellant has not produced any material to

show that the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Further, PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed

any proof regarding the performance of essential Hindu marriage

ceremonies such as Mangala Sutra Dharana, Saptapadi or

Panigrahanam. Therefore, in the absence of proof of solemnization of

marriage and in view of the admitted existence of a prior marital

relationship of the 1st respondent with said Venkata ramanamma, the

presumption of marriage cannot be drawn in favour of the appellant.

34. Even the evidence of the other witnesses i.e. P.W.3 -

Massagist at Kasturiba Nature Cure Hospital, and P.W.4 - known

person examined by the appellant on her behalf is also not at all

useful to the appellant to prove her case.

35. It is relevant to note that with regard to a valid marriage and

essential ceremonies of marriage in terms of the Act, 1955, vide order

dated 07.06.2024 in FCA Nos. 258, 291 and 312 of 2011, this Court

has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolly Rani V.

Manish Kumar Chanchal 2 wherein the Apex Court had an occasion

to deal with a valid marriage and essential ceremonies in accordance

with Section 7 of the Act, 1955 etc. The Relevant paragraphs are

extracted below:

"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 "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 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

2024 INSC 355

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.

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 12 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."

36. Vide order dated 07.06.2024 in FCA No.258, 291 and 312

of 2011 and batch, this Court placing reliance on Dolly Rani (supra),

held that proof of essential ceremonies like Saptapadi is mandatory for

validating a Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Act, 1955. It

further held that 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 by a 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 origin to

prove that no marriage took place.

37. Therefore, in the absence of proof regarding solemnization