Whether children born from live in relationship are legitimate?

 Justice Karnan had observed that both the petitioner and the respondent lived together as spouses and begot two children without legal encumbrance or third party interference or without affecting third party’s rights. He ruled out that there is no illegitimate relationship arising in this case. Marriage solemnization is only a customary right and obligation, but not a mandatory one and hence the Court treated the petitioner and the respondent as spouses in normal life with a typical identity of their own.

 Before the Supreme Court, Counsel for the petitioner M R Calla has sought, before the Supreme Court, deletion of the HC’s observations terming them as untenable in law as the petitioner 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.

“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.” Bench said.

Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 3390 OF 2014
                         (Crl M.P. No.6817 of 2014)

  Uday Gupta Vs    Aysha & Anr.      
                             
Dated;21st April, 2014


    Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
            This petition has been filed by an Advocate of this Court though
      not a party before the Madras High Court wherein the judgment impugned
      dated 17.6.2013 had been passed in Criminal R.C. No.674 of 2007 making
      certain observation regarding the relationship between man  and  woman
      and particularly the institution of marriage.
            Mr.  M.R.  Calla,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the
      petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the High  Court
      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” are not legally  tenable.   It  has  been
      pointed  out  by  Mr.  Calla,  learned  senior   counsel   that   such
      observations demolish the very institution  of  marriage  itself,  and
      therefore, are liable to be set aside.
            In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not
      consider it necessary to issue notice to anyone.
            We have gone through the judgment and order impugned and perused
      the record of the case.
            We are of the view that such observations had been made  in  the
      facts of that case.  In fact, what the learned Judge 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  be  a  presumption  of
      marriage and their children could not be called  to  be  illegitimate.
      Such a  view  stands  fully  fortified  by  a  very  large  number  of
      judgments.
            This Court in Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr., AIR
      2010 SC 2933 held as under:-
           “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. (Vide: Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd.  Ibrahim  Khan,  AIR
           1929 PC 135; Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 231; S.P.S.
           Balasubramanyam v.  Suruttayan,  (1994)  1  SCC  460;  Ranganath
           Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni,  (1996)  7
           SCC 681; and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti  Gangadhara  Swamy  &
           Ors., (2005)  2 SCC 244).”




            In Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Ranganathan  &  Ors.,  AIR
      2010 SC 2685, this Court dealt with the  legitimacy  of  the  children
      born out of such relationship observing:
           “Thus, 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.”




             In  the  instant  case,  the  High  Court  made  the  aforesaid
      observations in the facts of that case as the  alleged  marriage  took
      place  in  1994  and  two  children  were  born  in  1996   and   1999
      respectively.  Therefore, the observations made by the High  Court  in
      the said judgment are restricted to the facts of that case and do  not
      lay down the law of universal application.
            In view of the above, we do not deem it  necessary  to  consider
      the case any further.
            With these  observations,  the  special  leave  petition  stands
      disposed of.


                                         .........................………………..J.
                                                                (DR.    B.S.
      CHAUHAN)



      .............……………….………J.
                                                (J. CHELAMESWAR)
      New Delhi,
      April 21, 2014


      -----------------------
4

Print Page