Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
Presumption Of Marriage Arising From Long Cohabitation Rebuttable Only By Unimpeachable Evidence: Supreme Court
|The Apex Court held that when a man and woman live together as husband and wife for a prolonged period, the law presumes a valid marriage, and the burden lies on the challenger to disprove it with strong and credible material.
The Supreme Court has held that prolonged and continuous cohabitation between a man and a woman gives rise to a presumption of a valid marriage. The Court clarified that this presumption, while rebuttable, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence.
The Court observed that mere denial, reliance on revenue records, or absence of formal proof cannot defeat a relationship supported by consistent conduct, credible oral testimony, and long-standing recognition within the community.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasised that “A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife… a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin.”
Background
The case arose from a dispute over ancestral and self-acquired properties of a deceased individual, leading to competing claims of inheritance. The plaintiffs asserted that their mother was the first legally wedded wife of the deceased and that, as her children, they were entitled to a share in the properties.
They further claimed that the deceased and their mother had lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period and that the relationship was widely recognised within the family and the community.
The defendants denied the existence of such a marriage and disputed the plaintiffs’ status as legal heirs, arguing that they had no right to claim a share in the estate.
The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding that they had failed to prove the marriage through sufficient evidence. On appeal, the High Court reassessed the material on record, placing reliance on credible oral testimony that supported the plaintiffs’ claim of cohabitation and community recognition. Allowing the appeal, the High Court decreed partition of the properties in their favour.
Challenging this decision, the defendants approached the Supreme Court, contending that the plaintiffs had failed to produce conclusive proof of the marriage and questioning the High Court’s reliance on oral evidence.
Court’s Observations
Reaffirming the principle underlying Section 50 of the Evidence Act, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra and explained that when a court must form an opinion about the existence of a family relationship, the belief or conviction of a person with special means of knowledge becomes a relevant fact. In the case at hand, the Bench found the testimony of an elderly witness credible and consistent with the plaintiffs’ genealogical chart.
The Bench also discussed oral pedigree evidence, referring to State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh. It noted that while such evidence is an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be approached cautiously and corroborated by reliable circumstances. In this case, the testimony and the chart were mutually supportive.
On the presumption of marriage, the Court relied on Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and other precedents. Reaffirming that the law favours legitimacy, the court reiterated that, “The legal position enunciates a presumption in favour of a marriage where a man and woman have engaged in prolonged and continuous cohabitation. Such a presumption, though rebuttable in nature, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence.”
Furthermore, revenue entries relied on by the defendants were dismissed as inconclusive, with the Court citing Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner to emphasise that such records are primarily fiscal and do not establish ownership or marital status.
Lastly, the Bench drew an adverse inference from the failure of the defendant to enter the witness box despite being available and physically present during hearings. The Bench reiterated that where a party has personal knowledge of material facts, abstaining from testimony attracts an inference against them.
Conclusion
The Apex Court upheld the High Court’s decree and dismissed the appeal, observing that the defendants failed to produce any unimpeachable evidence to dislodge the presumption of marriage arising from prolonged cohabitation. Summarising its finding, the Court stated that, “The present Appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.”
Cause Title: Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another Versus Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1038)
Appearances
For Petitioners: Advocate Vipin Gupta
For Respondents: Advocate Anjana Chandrashekhar