If man & woman live together for long years as husband-wife, a presumption in favour of wedlock can be drawn: Top Court

Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock.   

A bench of Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath further said, “Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Although, the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place."

Top Court also relied on the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, wherein it was held that law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon the bastardy. 

These observations were made by the Court while dealing with an appeal filed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court whereby it had allowed the appeals and set aside the decree for partition passed by the Trial Court.

In the said suit, the appellants (plaintiff) contended that the suit property belonged to one Kattukandi Edathil Kanaran Vaidyar who had four sons viz. Damodaran, Achuthan, Sekharan and Narayanan.  

The first plaintiff-Krishnan was the son of Damodaran, born in the wedlock with one Chiruthakutty, and the second plaintiff was the son of the first plaintiff.    

Achuthan had one son  Karunakaran, the predecessor in­interest of the defendants. Sekharan was a bachelor and died without any issue.  Narayanan married one Lakshmi and they had a daughter by the name of Janaki, who also died as a spinster. The plaintiffs claimed half share in the suit schedule property.

It was the case of the defendants that all the children except Achuthan died as bachelors and Karunakaran is the only son of Achuthan. They denied the contention of the plaintiffs that Damodaran had married Chiruthakutty and that the first plaintiff was the son born to them in the said wedlock.

The top court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the long co-habitation to establish the relationship of husband­-wife between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty.

Krishnan deposed that his father­-Damodaran and mother­-Chiruthakutty resided in the suit schedule property. 

A neighbour in his evidence stated that Damodaran had married Chiruthakutty and they resided at Kattukandi Edathil House (suit property) as husband and wife.

The neighbour has further deposed in his cross that Damodarana’s sister also participated in the marriage.

Krishnan also produced his birth certificate where Damodaran and Chiruthakutty were described as father and mother. A Secondary School Leaving Certificate was also produced which Damodaran had kept in his possession.

The Malayala Manorama Daily wherein it was reported that Chiruthakutty, wife of Kattukandy Edathil Damodaran, aged 75 years had expired was produced wherein the name of the first plaintiff was shown as the son of Chiruthakutty.  A true copy of a voters list of the year 1970 where name of Chiruthakutty was shown as the wife of K.E. Damodaran was also submitted.

Top court held that these documents showed the long cohabitation of the plaintiff’s parents.

Furthermore, while noting that evidence of the defendants failed to rebut the presumption in favour of a marriage between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty on account of their long co­habitation, the Top Court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN & ANR. vs. KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS.