The high court of Kerala at Ernakulam,
Bench of Mr. Justice Muhamed Mustaq and Dr. Justice Kausaer Edappath while deciding a matrimonial appeal, remarked:
"A female partner in live in relationship cannot have a better claim than a legally married wife"
The appellant Rajeeve appealed, against the order of family court disentitling her of family pension and other death benefits of a railway government employee by claiming him to be her husband.
The matter in brief is that One Mr. S. Reghunathan, an employee of South Western Railways, died on 31/1/2009 while in service. After his death, the appellant Rajeeve as well as the first respondent, Sarasamma claiming themselves to be his legally wedded wife came forward and raised rival claims before the Railways.
The respondents 2. Union of India, 3. The General Manager and Chief Personal Officer South Western Railways and 4. The Divisional Personal Officer South Western Railways, for his service benefits. Since the issue could not be settled at the official level, the first respondent instituted original petition before the Family Court, Thiruvalla (for short 'the court below') invoking S.7 (b), (c) and (d) of the Family Courts, Act, 1984 to declare her marital status as the wife of late Reghunathan and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents 2 to 4 from disbursing the family pension and other death benefits of late Reghunathan to appellant further to restrain the appellant from receiving the same. The court below allowed the original petition and granted the reliefs sought for to the first respondent vide the impugned judgment.
The Hon'ble High Court significantly highlighted, "Even though there is no satisfactory evidence to prove valid marriage between the appellant and late Reghunathan, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant would show that she and Reghunathan cohabited together for a pretty long period and two children were born out of the said relationship. Normally, long cohabitation of a man and woman for a number of years accepted by the society as such may raise the presumption of valid marriage, unless contrary is proved, even in the absence of direct evidence of ceremonial marriage. However, when there is evidence of long cohabitation of a man with two women simultaneously with habit and repute begetting children in both relationships, one pursuant to a ceremonial marriage and the other one not pursuant to a ceremonial marriage, the presumption of valid marriage must lean in favour of the former even if the latter relationship commenced prior in point of time. It is true that the parties to a live-in relationship or non formal relationship who have lived together for an extended period of time could be brought within the purview of laws relating to maintenance and domestic violence husband and wife for the said limited purpose. But, parties to such a relationship cannot be elevated to marital status. A female partner in a live-in relationship cannot have a better claim than a legally married wife. For all these reasons, we hold that the court below was absolutely justified in declaring the status the first respondent as the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan."
Therefore, the Court pronounced that the appellant's children are not entitled to the properties including the death benefits of late Reghunathan was set aside.
Commentaires