Inderjit Kaur vs Parveen Kumar And Ors

1
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA
ARH
AT CHANDIGA
170
RSA No.1
Date of D

AUR
1432 of 2015 (O&M)
Decision: 26.08.2026
INDERJIT KA
Vs
PARVEEN KU
......Appellant
UMAR AND ORS.
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr
for

Mr
for

. Parminder Singh, Advocate
the appellant.
. I.P.S. Parmar, Advocate
the respondents.

HARKESH MA

[1]. By
ANUJA, J.
way of the present appeal, chall
lenge has been laid to the judgm
ment
and decree date
ed 11.09.2014 passed by the l
learned Additional District Jud
dge,
Ludhiana (herei
inafter referred to as "the Firs
st Appellate Court" ), whereby
the
appeal filed by
the plaintiffs against the judgm
ment and decree dated 27.09.20
013
passed by the le
earned Civil Judge (Junior Divisi
ion), Ludhiana (hereinafter refer
rred
to as "the Tri
al Court" ), dismissing the su
uit for declaration and perman
nent
injunction, was
allowed and the suit was decre
eed to the extent of the declarat
tion
sought, thereby
reversing the judgment and decr
ree of the learned Trial Court.
FACTS:
[2]. Bri
efly stating, a suit for declarati
ion and permanent injunction w
was
filed by Bir Sin
ngh, Vijay Singh, Raj Kumar, R
Ramesh Kumar and Parveen Kum
mar
(sons) and Meen
na (daughter) of late Sh. Hukam
m Chand, against Incharge, Prem
mjit
Health Centre, S
Sudhar (defendant No.1) and In
nderjit Kaur (defendant No.2), w
with
the averments th
hat Hukam Chand, who expired
d on 05.02.2008 while working a
as a
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

Sweeper in the o
office of defendant No.1, was su
urvived by the plaintiffs as his cla
ass-
I legal heirs; tha
at his G.P. Fund, salary and other
r retiral benefits were lying with
the
health departme
ent; and that defendant No.2, a
stranger to the plaintiffs, had w
with
malafide and di
ishonest intention started claim
ming herself to be the wife of
the
deceased, witho
ut any proof, in order to grab the
e retiral benefits. It was prayed t
that
a declaration be
e granted that defendant No.2 is
not the legally wedded wife of
the
deceased and th
at defendant No.1 be restrained
from releasing and defendant N
No.2
from claiming, t
the retiral benefits.
[3]. Upo
on notice, defendants No.1 an
nd 2 appeared and filed separ
rate
written stateme
ents. The defendant No.1 adm
mitted the suit to the extent t
that
plaintiffs were le
egal heirs but stated that defenda
ant No.2 was also a legal heir as
per
Legal Heir Cert
tificate issued by the S.D.M., Ra
aikot. The defendant No.2 asser
rted
that she was the
e legally wedded wife of the de
eceased, having married him in
the
year 2001 with t
the knowledge and consent of th
he plaintiffs and had lived with h
him
as husband and
wife till his death and that she
e was equally entitled, as a clas
ss-I
legal heir, to his
retiral benefits.
[4]. On
the basis of pleadings of the par
rties, the learned Trial Court fram
med
the following iss
sues:-
"1.
OP

2.
inju

3.
dec

4.
file

5.
cou
Whether the plaintiff is enti
PP
itled to the declaration as soug
ght?
If issue No.1 is proved whe
unction as claimed for? OPP
ether the plaintiff is entitled to
the
Whether the defendant No.2
ceased Hukam Chand? OPD
2 is the legally wedded wife of
the
Whether the plaintiff has no
the suit? OPD
locus standi and cause of action
n to
Whether the plaintiff has c
urt? If so its effect? OPD
concealed material facts from
the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201


6.
par

7.
Whether the suit is bad f
rties? OPD
for the non-joinder of necess
sary
Whether the suit is not maint
tainable in the present form? OP
PD
8.
Relief."

[5]. The
e learned Trial Court, vide
its judgment and decree da
ated
27.09.2013 dism
missed the suit filed at the inst
tance of the respondents-plainti
iffs,
holding that def
fendant No.2 had proved herself
f to be the wife of the deceased
d on
the strength of
the long and officially recognis
sed cohabitation with her husba
and,
coupled with m
material admissions made by th
he plaintiffs’ own witnesses in
her
favour.
[6]. Agg
grieved thereof, respondents-pla
aintiffs filed the first appeal wh
hich
came to be acc
cepted vide judgment and decr
ree dated 11.09.2014 holding t
that
defendant No.2's
s earlier marriage with Ashok K
Kumar stood admitted and was ne
ever
validly dissolve
ed and that since Ashok Kumar
survived till after Hukam Chan
nd's
death, her marri
iage with Hukam Chand, contra
acted during the subsistence of
the
first marriage, c
could not be treated as valid. O
On this basis, the suit was decre
eed,
declaring that d
defendant No.2 was not the leg
gally wedded wife of late Huk
kam
Chand. Hence th
he present Regular Second Appe
eal by Inderjit Kaur-defendant No
o.2.
CONTENTION
N(S):
ON BEHALF O
OF THE APPELLANT-DEFEN
NDANT NO.2:
[7]. Imp
pugning the aforementioned jud
dgment and decree passed by
the
learned First Ap
ppellate Court, learned counsel
l for the appellant-defendant N
No.2
submits that the
impugned judgment suffers from
m a patent error of law and is ba
ased
on surmises and
d conjectures. He submits that th
he onus of displacing the appella
ant's
status as wife
lay upon the respondents, wh
o failed to adduce even a sin
ngle
document in su
upport of their case, whereas th
heir own witnesses PW1 and PW
W2
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

made material a
admissions in the favour of app
pellant. He further submits that
the
learned Trial Co
ourt correctly invoked the presu
umption of marriage under Secti
ons
50 and 114 of t
the Evidence Act arising from
long and continuous cohabitati
ion,
buttressed by a
an unbroken chain of official d
documents and unrebutted witn
ness
testimony spann
ning several years, none of whi
ich were discussed or displaced
by
the learned First
t Appellate Court.
[7.1]. Le
arned counsel asserts that the a
admitted fact of an earlier marri
age
with Ashok Kum
mar, by itself, does not discharg
ge the burden on the respondents
s to
displace this pr
resumption; what was required
was proof that the first marri
age
subsisted in law
w at the time of the second, a ca
ase never pleaded, never made
the
subject of any i
ssue and never put to her as a s
specific case requiring proof of
the
mode or validity
y of dissolution. Issue No.3, as
s framed, was confined to the b
bare
factum of her b
eing the legally wedded wife an
nd the appellant was thus denie
ed a
fair opportunity
y to lead evidence on the cust
tomary Panchayati Talak she h
had
spoken of in he
er cross-examination. He submi
its that the learned First Appell
late
Court, by restin
ng its reversal on this singular, i
incidentally elicited fact, withou
ut a
specific issue d
directing evidence on it and
without weighing it against
the
documentary an
nd testimonial evidence relied up
pon by the learned Trial Court,
fell
into error. He th
us submits that the judgment and
d decree passed by the learned F
First
Appellate Court
t is liable to be set aside, restorin
ng the judgment and decree pas
ssed
by the learned T
Trial Court and the present appea
l be allowed.
ON BEHALF O
OF THE RESPONDENTS-PLA
AINTIFFS:
[8]. Per
r contra , learned counsel for resp
pondents-plaintiffs, submits that
the
findings of the l
learned First Appellate Court w
were based on a fair appreciation
n of
the record and d
do not call for interference. It is
s submitted that once the appell
lant
herself spoke of
f her earlier marriage with Asho
ok Kumar and of only "four law
was"
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

having been ta
ken for the second marriage,
without any evidence of a va
alid
dissolution of th
he first, the learned First Appella
ate Court was justified in examin
ning
whether the seco
ond marriage could confer the st
tatus of a legally wedded wife, t
this
being a question
n of Hindu law that the Court w
was entitled to consider on the fa
acts
before it, more
so where the fact emerged fr
om the appellant's own testimo
ony
rather than from
m any new case introduced by
the respondents. It is accordin
ngly
prayed that the
present appeal, being devoid o
of merit and raising no substan
ntial
question of law,
be dismissed.
DISCUSSION A
AND REASONING:
[9]. I h
have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through
the
paper book as w
well as the records of the case.
[10]. The
e material question that arises
before this Court is whether
the
appellant is the
e legally wedded wife of late H
Hukam Chand, since the relief
f of
declaration sou
ught by the respondents and
consequently their entitlement
to
restrain the appe
ellant from claiming the retiral
benefits, would flow entirely fr
rom
the answer to thi
is question.
[11]. It i
is well settled principle of law
that the presumption of marri
age
arising from lon
ng and continued cohabitation
as husband and wife is a stro
ong,
rebuttable presu
umption. In Kattukandi Edath
hil Krishnan and another ver
rsus
Kattukandi Eda
athil Valsan and others, (2022
2) 16 SCC 71 , the Hon’ble Ap
pex
Court held that
where a man and a woman hav
ve lived together for long years
s as
husband and wif
fe, a presumption arises in favou
ur of a valid marriage under Sect
tion
114 of the Evid
dence Act and that although the
presumption is rebuttable, a hea
avy
burden lies on th
he party seeking to deny the mar
rital status.
[11.1]. In S
Shiramabai W/o Pundalik Bhav
ve v. Captain, Record Officer 20
023
INSC 744 , it wa
as held that a strong presumption
n of valid marriage arises from lo
ong
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

and continuous
cohabitation, that such presu
umption can only be rebutted
by
unimpeachable e
evidence. The relevant portion th
hereof is extracted here:-
“11
1. It is no longer res integra that if a
a man and woman cohabit as husba
and
and
d wife for a long duration, one can
n draw a presumption in their fav
vour
that
t they were living together as a co
onsequence of a valid marriage. T
This
pres
sumption can be drawn under Sect
ion 114 of the Evidence Act that sta
ates
as f
follows:
"114. The Court may presum
e the existence of any fact which
h it
thinks likely to have happene
ed, regard being had to the comm
mon
course of natural events, hum
man conduct and public and priv
vate
business, in their relation to the
e facts of the particular case."
12.
In this above context, we may ref
fer to Andrahennedige Dinohamy a
and
Ano
other v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabend
dige Balahamy and Others 1927 S
SCC
OnL
Line PC 51, where the Privy Counc
cil observed thus:
".....where a man and woman
are proved to have lived together
r as
man and wife, the law will pre
esume, unless the contrary be clea
arly
proved, that they were living
together in consequence of a va
alid
marriage and not in a state of c
concubinage.
xxx xxx xxx
"The parties lived together for
r twenty years in the same house,
and
eight children were born to
them. The husband during his
life
recognized, by affectionate pr
rovisions, his wife and children.
The
evidence of the Registrar of the
e District shows that for a long cou
urse
of years the parties were reco
ognized as married citizens, and e
even
the family functions and cere
emonies, such as, in particular,
the
reception of the relations and
d other guests in the family house
e by
Don Andris and Balahamy as
s host and hostess-all such functi
ions
were conducted on the footing
g alone that they were man and w
wife.
No evidence whatsoever is affo
orded of repudiation of this relation
n by
husband or wife or anybody."
13.
In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muham
mmad Ibrahim Khan And Others 19
929
SCC
C OnLine PC 21, it was again obse
erving by the Privy council that:
"....The law presumes in f
favour of marriage and aga
ainst
concubinage when a man and a
a woman have cohabited continuou
usly
for a number of years......"
14. Similarly, in Badri Prasad
v. Dy. Director of Consolidation
and
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

Others (1978) 3 SCC 527, this
Court held as follows:
".......A strong presumption ar
rises in favour of wedlock where
the
partners have lived together fo
for a long spell as husband and w
wife.
Although the presumption is re
ebuttable, a heavy burden lies on
him
who seeks to deprive the relat
tionship of legal origin. Law leans
s in
favour of legitimacy and frowns
s upon bastardy....."
15.
In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Su
ruttayan alias Andali Padayachi a
and
Oth
hers (1994) 1 SCC 460, this Court h
held as under:
"4. What has been settled by th
his Court is that if a man and wom
man
live together for long years as
husband and wife then a presumpt
tion
arises in law of legality of ma
arriage existing between the two.
But
the presumption is rebuttable
(see Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kum
mari
(1952) 1 SCC 713).
16.
It is true that there would be a pr
resumption in favour of the wedloc
ck if
the
partners lived together for a long
g spell as husband and wife, but,
the
said
d presumption is rebuttable though
h heavy onus is placed on the one w
who
seek
ks to deprive the relationship of
of its legal origin to prove that
no
mar
rriage had taken place (refer: Tu
Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya
and
Oth
hers (2008) 4 SCC 520).
17.
A similar view has been taken by t
this Court in Madan Mohan Singh
and
Oth
hers v. Rajni Kant and Another (20
010) 9 SCC 209, Indra Sarma v. V.K
K.V.
Sar
rma(supra) and Dhannulal And Oth
hers v. Ganeshram And Another.
18.
In the case of Gokal Chand v. Pa
arvin Kumari alias Usha Rani(sup
pra)
this
s Court observed thus :
"......Continuous cohabitation
of man and woman as husband
and
wife and their treatment as suc
ch for a number of years may raise
the
presumption of marriage, but t
the presumption which may be dra
awn
from long cohabitation is rebu
uttable and if there are circumstan
nces
which weaken and destroy that
t presumption, the court cannot ign
nore
them."
19.
In Kattukandi Edathil Valsan's
Case (supra), citing the aboves
said
dec
isions and relying on Section 114 o
of the Evidence Act, this Court held
d in
the
facts of the said case that there
was a presumption of the marri
iage
betw
ween the parents of the plaint
tiffs on the ground of their lo
ong
coh
habitation status, entitling their offs
fspring to claim their share in the
suit
sche
edule property.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

20.
It can be discerned from the afo
oresaid line of decisions that the
law
infe
ers a presumption in favour of a ma
arriage when a man and woman h
have
con
ntinuously cohabitated for a long sp
pell. No doubt, the said presumptio
n is
rebu
uttable and can be rebutted by lea
ading unimpeachable evidence. W
When
ther
re is any circumstance that weake
ens such a presumption, courts ou
ught
not
to ignore the same. The burden l
ies heavily on the party who seeks
s to
que
estion the cohabitation and to d
deprive the relationship of a le
egal
san
ctity.”

[11.2]. Ap
pplying the aforesaid ratio to the
e facts of the present case, Huk
kam
Chand and the
appellant lived together as hu
usband and wife from 2001 u
until
Hukam Chand's
s death on 05.02.2008, a perio
od corroborated not merely by
the
appellant's own
assertion but by an unbroken
chain of documents including
the
Legal Heir Cer
rtificate issued by the S.D.M.,
Raikot dated 19.05.2009 (Ex.D
D2)
recognizing the
appellant as a natural heir of th
he deceased; the Voter List (Ex.D
D3)
and Ration Card
d (Ex.D10) both recording her a
as residing with the deceased as
his
wife; the Medic
cal Reimbursement Bill dated
31.05.2006 (Ex.D6) in which
the
deceased himse
lf claimed reimbursement for th
he appellant's treatment describ
bing
her as his wife;
; the Sale Deed dated 04.10.20
03 (Ex.D9), executed in favour
r of
"Inderjit Kaur W
W/o Hukam Chand"; and the Sch
heduled Caste Certificate (Ex.D
D11)
recording the sa
ame status. This is reinforced by
y the admissions of the responde
ents'
own witnesses,
PW1 Parveen Kumar and PW
W2 Raj Kumar, including PW
W1's
admission that
a police enquiry, initiated at th
he instance of his own family, h
had
itself concluded
d that the appellant was the legal
lly wedded wife and that the ho
ouse
in dispute stoo
od registered in her name. Th
his is precisely the kind of lo
ong,
continued and o
officially recognized cohabitatio
on which, per the settled positi
ion,
raises a strong p
presumption in favour of a valid m
marriage.
[11.3]. Onc
ce this presumption arose, th
he burden lay heavily upon
the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

respondents to
rebut it by unimpeachable evi
idence and this burden was ne
ever
discharged. The
e respondents produced no inde
ependent document or evidence
e of
their own; their
entire case rested on the appell
lant's own admission, made dur
ring
cross-examinatio
on, that she had an earlier marr
riage with one Ashok Kumar. T
This
admission alone
e does not amount to the unimp
peachable evidence required in l
aw.
What needed to
o be shown and was never show
wn, was that this first marriage w
was
still legally sub
bsisting throughout the period
the appellant lived with Huk
kam
Chand, that is, t
that it had not been dissolved in
n any recognized manner, includ
ding
by custom. No
issue was ever specifically fr
ramed asking either party to l
ead
evidence on thi
s discrete question of whether t
the first marriage subsisted or h
had
been dissolved;
Issue No.3, as framed by the lea
arned Trial Court, went generally
y to
the appellant's s
status as the legally wedded wife
fe. In the absence of such a spec
cific
issue, neither t
the appellant's claim of a cus
tomary Panchayati Talak nor
the
respondents' cas
se of continued subsistence was
ever fully tested through eviden
nce
and a finding re
sting entirely on the appellant's
bare, incidental admission, with
hout
either side havin
ng led evidence on this specific q
question, is based on an incompl
lete
view of the reco
ord.
[12]. Ind
dependent of this infirmity, t
he documentary and testimon
nial
evidence which
had consistently and independen
ntly recognised the appellant as
the
wife of the dece
eased for several years before any
y dispute over retiral benefits aro
ose,
was not displace
ed or discussed while arriving a
at a contrary conclusion. A rever
rsal
of a well-reason
ned decree, without discussing
this material evidence forming
its
foundation and
without any finding on the
subsistence of the first marri
age
properly arrived
d at on unimpeachable evidence,
, cannot be sustained in the hum
mble
opinion of this C
Court.
[13]. In
view of the above, this Court
finds substance in the appella
ant's
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
5 (O&M)


RSA No.1432 of 201

submissions tha
at the reversal of the well-consi
dered findings of the learned T
Trial
Court, resting
on a singular, incidentally
elicited admission, without
the
respondents hav
ving discharged the heavy burd
den that lay upon them, withou
ut a
corresponding f
finding on the continued subs
sistence of the first marriage a
and
without discussi
ing the material evidence on reco
ord, cannot be sustained in law.
RELIEF:
[14]. For
r the reasons mentioned above,
the present appeal is allowed. T
The
judgment and de
ecree dated 11.09.2014 passed b
by the learned First Appellate Co
ourt
is set aside and
the judgment and decree dated
d 27.09.2013 passed by the learn
ned
Trial Court, dism
missing the suit, is restored.
[15]. The
e interim stay order dated 1
15.05.2015 restraining release
of
pensionary bene
efits beyond 50% stands vacated
d. The remaining retiral/pension
nary
benefits, if any,
, be released in favour of the
appellant within a period of th
hree
months from the
e date of this order along with i
interest @ 6% per annum from
the
date of its accru
al till actual disbursal.
[16]. Pen
nding application(s), if any, shall
l also stand disposed of.


(HARKESH MANUJA)
JUDGE

August 26, 2026
Atik

6

ether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
ether reportable Yes/No
Whe
Whe
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document