Prolonged Cohabitation Raises Presumption of Marriage, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, reiterated that law presumes a valid marriage when a man and woman have lived together for a long period as husband and wife, and such a presumption, though rebuttable, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that any circumstance weakening this presumption cannot be ignored, and the burden lies heavily on the party questioning the cohabitation and seeking to deprive the relationship of legal sanctity.

"Such prolonged cohabitation, coupled with the testimony of P.W.2 (Hanumanthappa), attracts a strong presumption in favour of a valid wedlock. Although the presumption is rebuttable, the onus lies on defendant No. 1 to disprove the legitimacy of the relationship. In the present case, defendant No. 1, except for mere denial, has not substantiated any material, oral or documentary, to rebut the presumption of a valid marriage between the deceased Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother", the bench observed.

Court was hearing an appeal by Chowdamma through her legal representatives, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s judgment of October 28, 2010, which decreed a suit for partition in favour of plaintiffs Venkatappa and Siddamma.

They claimed to be the children of Dasabovi through his first wife, Bheemakka @ Sathyakka, and sought half share in family properties. The defendants contended that Chowdamma was the only wife of Dasabovi and denied the marriage with the plaintiffs’ mother.

The plaintiffs asserted that their mother was married to Dasabovi in accordance with community customs, and after he brought another woman, Chowdamma, into the household, they were driven out. They alleged that Chowdamma later used her influence as a Panchayat member to get her name and her son’s name entered in revenue records.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2005, but the High Court reversed the decision, relying on oral testimony, particularly that of Hanumanthappa (P.W.2), and drew an adverse inference from Chowdamma’s failure to depose.

Before the Top Court, the appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to produce cogent evidence to establish a valid marriage and that revenue records stood in the defendants’ names. They contended that adverse inference for not entering the witness box was unwarranted as defendant No.1 was aged and suffering from arthritis.

Rejecting these submissions, the bench emphasised that the best evidence available assumes significance where there is a paucity of documentary proof.

Court noted that Hanumanthappa, aged 75, a resident of Antharagange village, had long-standing familiarity with both families and testified that the plaintiffs’ mother married Dasabovi about 57 years ago, and that the plaintiffs were born out of that union.

He further stated that even after the plaintiffs’ mother was ousted, Dasabovi continued to visit her and the plaintiffs.

The bench held that such testimony, rooted in personal knowledge and consistent with Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, could not be dismissed as hearsay. Court also cited precedents including Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra (1959), which clarified that opinions expressed by conduct by persons with special knowledge are relevant facts, and Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978), which affirmed a strong presumption of marriage in cases of prolonged cohabitation.

Court observed that the plaintiffs discharged their burden of proof through credible oral evidence, while the defendants, except for bare denial, failed to adduce any material to rebut the presumption of a valid marriage. The plea that the plaintiffs’ mother belonged to a different caste was found to be speculative and unsupported by evidence.

On revenue entries, court reiterated that they have only presumptive value and do not confer title.

It further held that defendant No.1’s silence carried grave evidentiary consequences. Though physically present during the trial, she refrained from entering the witness box or seeking recourse to Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC for recording evidence on commission, despite claiming medical incapacity. This omission, the bench said, amounted to deliberate evasion attracting an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

“A court of law cannot offer refuge to studied silence where a duty to disclose exists,” the bench remarked, affirming that the plaintiffs’ case was supported by natural and consistent evidence, while the defendants resorted to unsubstantiated denials.

Finding no infirmity in the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

Case Title: Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another

Date of Judgment: August 25, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra