_edited.png)
Authored by Aditi Raj (Intern at Legal Soch Foundation)
Meta description: In the bench of justice Hima kohli and Rajesh Bindal they observed that if a man and a woman conjugate together for a long time it will presume marriage.
Keyword: property law, article 14, evidence act
In a case of property dispute, the members of a family (four sons) contested after the death of their grandfather, his mistress, who isnot legally married to him but lived with him for 20 years and had a son, is not entitled to inherit the property after his death.The question before the courts was whether this child of theirs should be treated as an illegitimate child or not, as there is no evidence that the couple has tied the knot of marriage.As the rival side said, she is only the mistress and not his legal wife, so she has no legal right over his property.
The Kerala High Court said that the marriage between them does not have legal proof, so it is not valid.After dealing with the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said, according to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, if a man and a woman reside in the same house and cohabit for a significant period of time, there is a presumption of marriage.
Justices Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said, "The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage because they have cohabited continuously for a long time."However, this presumption can be claimed as wrong by unimpeachable evidence. The burden lies on the party who lacks the legal right to live together.But in this case, there is strong evidence and presumption that proves that this is a valid consequence of marriage, as they have lived together for a long time, and this cannot be said to be a concubinage.
Follow us on LinkedIn -
Those interested in reading News, can join this group -
Comments