INTRODUCTION
The issue of what constitutes valid marriage and what are the necessary requisites has been a bone of contention since 17th century. The controversy with respect to the presumption of marriage has been there since the time of Privy Council. The case at hand, i.e. Challamma v. Tilaga[1] explicated the stance of Indian judiciary with respect to the aforementioned issue. The supreme court of India, through its judgement laid down a precedent that marriage should be presumed in case of long cohabitation. There exists a cogent presupposition that there is existence of valid and lawful marriage if the parties have been cohabiting as a couple in the eyes of the society and the cohabitation has been there for a substantial period.
This paper focuses on an intensive discussion on the issue of presumption of marriage with reference to the cases decided by various courts. It will further juxtapose the facets of long period of cohabitation and how it has worked as a tool to accord legal status to the dynamic concept of live-in relationships. It will then analyse the position of law in other countries throughout the world and compare their position with respect to the law in India.
The breakdown of the abovementioned issues would be executed with the aid of The Indian Evidence Act, The Hindu Marriage Act and The Code of Criminal Procedure.
FACTUAL ANALYSIS
One person known as KT Subramanya, who was the son of appellant Challamma ensconced insurance from L.I.C. in which he had designated his mother as beneficiary. The deceased married on 3rd December 1984 and his wife is the first respondent. He died in 1988. The sons of the deceased were other respondents. After the deceased died, she filed a petition under § 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. She pleaded in order to a succession certificate. She argued that she and the deceased had participated in cohabitation for a long period of time and hence were validly married which made her eligible to get the succession certificate. Responding to the petition, the mother of the deceased who was the appellant argued that respondent should not be awarded with the certificate because she was never married to her son. She contended that the necessary conditions of a valid marriage were far from satisfied and irretrievable injustice will be done if succession certificate is granted to the first respondent. A suit was filed to solve the ensuing dispute.
ISSUES
· Whether the first respondent was lawfully married to the deceased?
· Whether all the constituents mentioned under § 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were contended to ordain a valid marriage or not?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After examining the witnesses and furnishing evidences, the respondent argued that their marriage was valid as it satisfied all the requirements of the Hindu marriage act (herein after HMA). It pleaded before the court that they have been living together in a house for a significant period of 3 years, 9 months and 19 days. They also claimed that they had been accepted as a married couple by the society. The trial judge gave a judgement in their favour after listening to the arguments of both the parties and granted a succession certificate to the respondents.
The appellants challenged this decision in the high court and their application was accepted. The appellants contended that the burden of proof lied on the respondents to prove the fact that their marriage had satisfied all the necessary requirements provided under the HMA. The counsel of the appellants questioned the chastity of the respondent stating that she was a “woman of easy virtue” and hence, it was strenuous to assume the presence of a valid marriage. The counsel for the respondent responded to the claim by stating that they had provided enough proof to substantiate their claim. They also presented a marriage certificate registered under the office of a local Sub- registrar. They also furnished an application as evidence, in which the deceased had applied for allotment of quarter as a married person. The court took into consideration all the evidences and witnesses and gave a judgement in favour of the respondents. It also ruled that the marriage to be valid one and respondents well earned a succession certificate.
RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT
There exists presumption of marriage if a man and woman are involved in the deed of long cohabitation for a long period of time.
ANALYSIS
The case evidently deals with the issue of assumption of subsistence of valid marriage. So for complete lucidity of the topic, careful perusal of concepts of marriage is really important.
Marriage as a concept
There is ample of significance of marriage in our society. It is one of the biggest social institutions which contribute massively towards the functioning of the society. It forms the foundation for transmogrification of the society. It has been historically termed as a sacramental union between the parties. It is supposed to be a permanent union which is also sacrosanct. Manu, in his writings had said that marriage ties individuals in a bond which continues to exist even after the death of the individuals.
The quintessential requirements which are needed to be satisfied for valid marriage to take place are:
(1) Invocation before the sacred fire
(2) Satpadi.
In Chaki v. Ayyappan[2], which was one of the significant precedents laid down by the Kerala HC, it was held that the process of taking rounds around the holy fire by the bride and groom which is known as Satpadi is one of the major requirements for a marriage to be valid. Further, Section 5 of the HMA states all the conditions required for a valid marriage are needed to be satisfied, so that a marriage can be solemnized. The word solemnise refers to the execution of apposite ceremonies to commemorate the marriage. Para 4 of the section states that when a couple lives together under one roof for a long time exercising long cohabitation, they are generally presumed to be legally married.
Facts relating to Marriage:
As laid down in the case Khiteshwar Pukan v Sola Gogoi[3], all the facts relating to the marriage have to be validated and established with the help of apposite arguments and proper evidence. It was also held that in case, that if the required criteria is not satisfied a marriage can’t be concluded to be solemnised.[4] In the case of Garija Singh v Soorjit Kaur[5], it was established that if a woman claims her share in the property, she has to prove beyond doubt that she was part of a valid marriage and had been in a relationship with the concerned individual. The court further went on to say that the essential requirements which are needed to be proved must be significant processes like ceremonies and well worn rites. Only proving that the ancillary customs were performed, which are not a part of basic modus operandi, won’t help.[6]
In order to establish the existence of valid marriage, both oral and documented evidence are required to be produced by the parties.[7] The oral testimonies may involve the verbal evidences given by the parties, their relatives or anybody distantly related to the matter.[8] In the present case of Challamma vs. Tilaga, different oral and documented evidences were provided by the parties to establish the existence of the marriage. The documented evidence was the house application of the couple where the appellant’s son and oral evidence being the verbal confessions of Tilaga. Her parents also gave testimony in front of the court which amounted to oral evidence.
Section 50 of the Indian evidence Act[9]specifies that, in a case in which the court has to assess the relationship existing between parties, any person’s views, which can be conveyed by his/her actions is deemed to be relevant to reach at a conclusion. But one contingency exists that the person conveying such an opinion must have adequate means to acquire specific knowledge of the subject matter dealt with. Only then his opinion will be termed as relevant and one which can be accepted in a court of law, otherwise it won’t be provided with any kind of attention.
Section 114 of the Indian evidence act (herein after IEA) lays down that in specific situations, courts of law can assume the subsistence of certain circumstance and facts. The judges in this case referred to Tulisa v. Durghatya[10], in which the judges construed the section fifty and one hundred fourteen of the IEA and concluded that the court can presuppose the existence of valid marriage by interpreting the facts and circumstances related to the case. The judges in this case interpreted the facts following the aforementioned precedent and gave a judgement in favour of the respondent.
Presumption of Marriage
There exists presumption of marriage if a couple lives together for a long period of time involved n the act of cohabitation.[11] A valid marriage is assumed to be existing and the couple is termed as husband and wife. In Gokul Chand v Parveen Kumari,[12] it was held that if it appears from the conduct of a couple that they are husband and wife, then a general assumption arises that there exists a valid marriage.
But the concept found more clarity after the judgement given in Koppisetti Subbharao alias Subramaniam v. state of A.P,[13] that a valid marriage is not presumed in case of concubinage.
The Supreme court settled all the debates surrounding the case of presumption of marriage by its judgement in S.P.S Bala v. Suruttayan,[14], where a mistress was denied any share in the inheritance by the father in law. The court rejected all the contentions of the father-in-law and granted proprietary rights to the concubine and termed the marriage to be valiid, because the couple had lived together under one roof for a long period of time.
There exists a rebuttal to the abovementioned presumption which was laid down by the apex court in Thakur Goakal Chand v. Pravin Kumari,[15] In this the court denied to accept the presumption of marriage because plaintiff’s rejoinder to his alleged daughter and wife was deemed as unnatural towards the institution of marriage because once the daughter was born, the alleged wife left the father and the father never took the responsibility to enquire about them. Hence, despite the existence of long cohabitation of marriage, presumption of valid marriage was rebutted. Hence, the courts evidently possess the prerogative to interpret the facts to judge the validity of the marriage.
Careful perusal of all the evidence states a fact that evidences with respect to the existence of valid marriage are mostly verbal testimonies of people related to the concerned couple, hence the confessions which are given with respect to the marriage becomes really crucial.
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP:
The theme of Live-in Relationship is an evolving concept which is developing gradually with time. As mentioned earlier, Marriage is deemed to be a hallowed institution, especially in a country like India. Hence, the concept of live-in relationship, which somewhat challenges the idea of marriage is not socially acceptable by the society. But gradually the thought process of the new liberal generation is changing, which is helping in the acceptance of the concept of live-in relationships. This profound acceptance of this concept of marriage led to consternations over legal status, obligation and rights of the parties indulged in such a relationship. Even though many fractions of the civil society have raised this issue, the stance still remains unclear. In S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr.[16], the supreme court of India held that if two parties live as a couple for a long term, they will be presupposed as a married couple, unless proved otherwise. Despite finding very little acceptance among the members of the society, this concept has found acceptance among the lawmakers who came out with legislations relating to such relationships, like inculcating the idea of Domestic Violence Act[17] for protection of women in such relationship.
The apex court acknowledged the concept of live-in relationships for the first time in the case of Babri Prasaad vs. Deputy Director of Cons.i,[18] recognized the concept of live in relationship. The bone of contention was what the constituents of a valid marriage are. The judges construed the law to hold that there exists valid marriage in case of live-in relationship and gave legal status to such marriages where the couple has been residing together for more than fifty years. The court also added that the assumption can be rebutted, but the burden to prove that there is no valid marriage lies heavily on the party who asserts it.[19]
Although, the apex court through its various judgements, has established the legality of live-in relationships, but the legislature has not come up with any kind of significant legislations to establish a rule of law regarding this concept. The apex court has held that the rights of the parties in such a relationship is sacrosanct and can be derived through the common law principles.
The judges in the case of Challamma v. Tillaga, used the principle of prolonged cohabitation in order to prove the existence of valid marriage. All other cases discussed in this paper also ran on same presumption of marriage being valid in cases of long period of cohabitation
But it will be blasphemous to conclude that all live-in relationships can be assumed to be valid marriages especially where cohabitation has been there for a very short period of time. The apex court aptly stated in the case of D Velu v D Patchai[20] that “merely spending days together or a one nightstand would not make it a valid marriage.
This ratio is plausible enough because if temporary alignments are termed as valid relationships then a floodgate of cases regarding maintenance and everything will conjure up. A simple conclusion can be withdrawn that not all live-in relationships can be termed as valid marriages. In order to term such relationships as legal, the court, through cases like Challamma v. Tilaga has laid down certain guidelines, for example the norm regarding long cohabitation between parties, which are needed to be followed in order to bring a successful claim of valid marriage.
LEGISLATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES:
In other common law countries throughout the world, there exists a rebuttable presumption that when a couple has performed all the prevailing customary practices of marriage, it is termed as valid.[21] Even when there are no evidences supporting the registration of marriages, validity of marriage is assumed. All the kinds of validity, may it be essential or informal, are taken care of. Another condition where marriage is assumed to be valid is when the couple have been engaged in cohabitation for a long period of time. This precedent was established in another situation under common law, when the marriage is presumed is when the couple is proved to practice continued cohabitation. The rule was established in Wattson vs. Tate[22], in which a couple cohabitated together under one roof for 20 odd years and their union was termed as a valid marriage. The Victorian law mandates the marriage to be registered in order to be valid. Similarly various contrasting laws exist throughout the world regarding validity of live-in relationships.
CHILLAMA v. TILAGA AS A PRECEDENT:
The ratio laid down in the case of Challamma v. Tilaga still exists as good law throughout the country and has been used as a precedent throughout the country. The ratio of the case stands as a good law in India and has been used by courts in various cases as binding precedent. N certain significant cases like Bajju Joseph v. Becky Elizabeth.[23], Manisha Mazumdar v. State of West Bengal,[24] Mohabat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan,[25]Kavita v. Smt. Bhatri,[26]Kupan v. Munimmal[27],where facts of the case was similar to that of Tilaga case, the court used the case as a binding precedent to arrive at a judgement. It was a praiseworthy judgement which laid down plausible guidelines which are used by the courts to gauze the validity of any kind of relationships and check whether if it is a valid marriage or not.
CONCLUSION
The stratagem of applying the principle of prolonged cohabitation to establish the existence of valid marriage as done by the court in the Tilaga case is a well settled precedent and has been applied in courts throughout the country without any contention, controversy or objection. In this modern age of autonomy and iconoclastic mentality, live-in relationship is becoming widespread. The implementation of such a law will go in a long way in undoing the wrongs committed under the garb of live-in relations. It also gives ample liberty to people to exercise it and takes care of any kind of repercussions. It protects the rights and obligations of the parties entering into such kinds of arrangement. It is safe to conclude that it is a progressive step towards the emancipation of both Indian judiciary and Indian society.
* Authored by Pratyush Kumar Jena, 2nd year B.A.LL.B. student at WBNUJS
[1] Challamma v. Tilaga, (2009) 9 SCC 299. [2]Chaki v. Ayyappan, AIR 1989 Ker 89. [3]Khiteshwar Pukan v. Sola Gogoi, AIR 1991 Gau 61. [4]Id. [5]Soorjit Kaur v. Garija Singh, AIR 1994 SC 135. [6]Id. [7]Sarkar and mitra, Marriage and Divorce Laws (2013). [8]Id. [9]The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [10] Tulisa v. Durghatya, (2008) 4 SCC 520. [11] S.P.S Bala v. Suruttayan, 1994 1 SCC 460. [12] Thakur Goakal Chand v. Pravin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231. [13] Koppisetti Subbharao alias Subramanian v. Stete of A. P., AIR 2009 SC 2684. [14] S.P.S Bala v. Suruttayan, 1994 1 SCC 460. [15] Thakur Goakal Chand v. Pravin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231. [16] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another, (2010) 5 SCC 600. [17] The Domestic Violence Act, 2005. [18] Babri Prasad v. Director of Cons., (1978) 3 SCC 527. [19]Id. [20] D. Veluswami v. D. Patchai, (2010) 10 SCC 469. [21] Peirs v. Peirs, (1849) 9 ER 118. [22]Waston v. Tete, (1973) 3 ALL ER 105. [23]Bajju Joseph v. Becky Elizabeth, (2009) SCC OnLine Ker 4567. [24]Manisha Mazumdar v. Stete of West Bengal, (2014) SCC OnLine Cal 14686. [25]Mohabat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135. [26]Kavita v. Smt. Bhatri, (2015) 3 ICC 312. [27]Kupan v. Munimmal, (2010) 2 CTC 622.
Hozzászólások