Long cohabitation raises a strong presumption of valid marriage, rebuttable only by unimpeachable evidence.

Hukam Chand, a sweeper in the Premjit Health Centre, died on 05.02.2008, leaving behind six children—Bir Singh, Vijay Singh, Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Parveen Kumar and Meena—as his alleged Class I legal heirs.

They instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Health Centre and Inderjit Kaur, seeking a declaration that Inderjit Kaur was not Hukam Chand’s legally wedded wife and restraining her from claiming, and the department from releasing, his retiral benefits.

Inderjit Kaur asserted that she had married Hukam Chand in 2001, lived with him as his wife until his death, and was entitled to his retiral benefits.

The department also recognised her as a legal heir on the basis of a Legal Heir Certificate issued by the SDM, Raikot.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 27.09.2013, holding that Inderjit Kaur had established her status as Hukam Chand’s wife through long cohabitation, official records and admissions made by the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed that decree on 11.09.2014, holding that Inderjit Kaur’s earlier marriage with Ashok Kumar had not been validly dissolved and that her marriage with Hukam Chand, contracted during the subsistence of the earlier marriage, was invalid.

Inderjit Kaur thereafter filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

The Court applied Sections 50 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Long and continuous cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife raises a strong, though rebuttable, presumption in favour of a valid marriage; the burden lies heavily on the party seeking to deny the marital relationship and must ordinarily be discharged through unimpeachable evidence.

The Court relied on Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, (2022) 16 SCC 71; Shiramabai v. Captain, Record Officer (2023); Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy, 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51; Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, 1929 SCC OnLine PC 21; Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527; S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC 460; Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520; and Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari.

These authorities establish that the law leans in favour of marriage and legitimacy, and that long cohabitation may be displaced only by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court found that Inderjit Kaur and Hukam Chand had lived together as husband and wife from 2001 until his death in 2008.

This relationship was independently corroborated by the Legal Heir Certificate dated 19.05.2009, voter list, ration card, medical reimbursement bill in which Hukam Chand described Inderjit Kaur as his wife, sale deed describing her as “Inderjit Kaur W/o Hukam Chand,” and Scheduled Caste Certificate.

Admissions by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, including an admission regarding a police inquiry that recognised her as Hukam Chand’s legally wedded wife, further strengthened the presumption.

The respondents failed to rebut this strong presumption by unimpeachable evidence.

Their case rested substantially on Inderjit Kaur’s admission that she had earlier married Ashok Kumar.

That admission did not establish that the earlier marriage remained legally subsisting when she married or began cohabiting with Hukam Chand.

No evidence was led regarding the absence of divorce, the invalidity of any customary dissolution, or the continued subsistence of the first marriage.

The Court also noted that no specific issue had been framed on this distinct question, and therefore the parties had not received a proper opportunity to lead evidence concerning the alleged customary “Panchayati Talak” or the subsistence of the earlier marriage.

The First Appellate Court consequently erred by reversing the Trial Court solely on the basis of an incidental admission, without considering the substantial documentary and testimonial evidence supporting Inderjit Kaur’s marital status.

The appeal was allowed; the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 11.09.2014 were set aside, and the Trial Court’s decree dated 27.09.2013 dismissing the suit was restored.

The interim order restraining release of more than 50% of the pensionary benefits was vacated, and the remaining retiral or pensionary benefits were directed to be released to Inderjit Kaur within three months, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until actual disbursement.