New Delhi: If an unmarried couple is living together as husband and wife, then they would be presumed to be legally married and the woman would be eligible to inherit the property after death of her partner, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of Justice MY Eqbal and Justice Amitava Roy said continuous cohabitation of a couple would raise the presumption of valid marriage and it would be for the opposite party to prove that they were not legally married.
“It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. A heavy burden lies on a party who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court has since 2010 consistently ruled in favour of couples living together as husband and wife, giving the woman the right of a wife.
The court passed the order in a property dispute where family members contested that their grandfather, who was living with a woman for 20 years after his wife’s death, was not legally wedded to the woman and she was not entitled to inherit the property after his death. They contended that she was their grandfather’s mistress.
Despite the woman failing to prove that she was legally wedded, the court presumed that she was the legal wife after family members admitted that his grandfather had a relationship with the woman who was living with them in the joint family
“Where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a state of concubinage,” the bench said.
“In the fact of the case, there is strong presumption in favour of the validity of a marriage and the legitimacy of its child for the reason that the relationship is recognized by all persons concerned,” it said.
The court said continuous cohabitation as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years might raise the presumption of marriage which could be rebutted only if there were circumstances which destroyed the presumption.
SC earlier: Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate
Earlier in April 2014, giving an important clarification on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court has said that if a man and woman “lived like husband and wife” for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were married.
A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and J Chelameswar on Monday issued the clarification on a petition filed by advocate Uday Gupta, who had questioned certain sweeping observations made by the Madras high court while dealing with the issue of live-in relationships. Importantly, the SC said children born out of prolonged live-in relationships could not be termed illegitimate.
Gupta had challenged the HC’s observation that “a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnized”.
His counsel, M R Calla, sought deletion of the HC’s observations terming them as untenable in law. He apprehended that these remarks could demolish the very institution of marriage.
The bench went through the judgment and said the HC’s observations could not be construed as a precedent for other cases and would be confined to the case in which these were made.
Justices Chauhan and Chelameswar said,”In fact, what the HC wanted to say is that if a man and woman are living together for a long time as husband and wife, though never married, there would a presumption of marriage and their children could not be called illegitimate.”
In 2010, the apex court had in Madan Mohan Singh vs Rajni Kant case said, “The courts have consistently held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence.”
The same year, the court had in another judgment hinted at the legitimacy of children born out of such relations. “It is evident that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act intends to bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children, otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.”
Section 16 of Hindu Mariage Act provides,”Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such a child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.”
Delhi High Court: Can’t keep live-in relations outside purview of rape
In March this year, the Delhi high court has refused to keep live-in relationships outside the purview of rape under the IPC, saying it would amount to giving them the status of matrimony, which the legislature has chosen “not to do”.
The court made the observation while hearing a PIL, which had sought direction to the government to keep the cases of live-in relationships outside the purview of the offence of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“As far as the relief sought, of keeping the live-in relationships outside the purview of Section 376 (rape) of the IPC is concerned, the same would amount to giving the live-in relationships, the status of matrimony and which the legislature has chosen not to do,” a bench of chief justice G Rohini and justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said.
“All that we can observe is, that a live-in-relationship constitutes a distinct class from marriage. It is also not as if the defence of consent would not be available in such cases to the accused. We do not find any merit in the petition and dismiss the same,” the judge added.
The PIL also sought direction that the complaint lodged by a live-in partner against the other should be registered under section 420 (cheating), not section 376 (rape), which was turned down by the court, saying it cannot pass such order.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Anil Dutt Sharma who had contended that according to the records it has been seen that in many cases, courts acquit men accused of rape as the women file false case.
“In more than 70 per cent cases, the accused is found not guilty and other associated family members of the acquitted accused face humiliation in society,” the plea had said.
It also sought direction to the Centre and Delhi government to secure constitutional rights of the person acquitted from rape charges by the way of compensation and registration of cases against those who misuse the law.
It had said that police should not arrest a person only on the basis of an allegation by a woman prior to conducting preliminary enquiry and getting a medical report, but before arrest, sufficient cause should be recorded by a senior officer to avoid false implication humiliation in society,” the plea had said.
It also sought direction to the Centre and Delhi government to secure constitutional rights of the person acquitted from rape charges by the way of compensation and registration of cases against those who misuse the law.
It had said that police should not arrest a person only on the basis of an allegation by a woman prior to conducting preliminary enquiry and getting a medical report, but before arrest, sufficient cause should be recorded by a senior officer to avoid false implication.
(Compiled from Agencies)
