1. The Petitioner has filed this petition for revoking the order dated 3rd October 2008 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.31 of 2007, granting legal heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1927 to the Respondent and for other ancillary reliefs. The Petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Santosh Atmaram Shirke, who expired on 21st August 2005. The Petitioner claims that the deceased died leaving behind her and her three children Shraddha, Devyani and Siddhesh Shirke as his only surviving heirs and legal representatives.

2. She claims to have been married to the deceased as per Hindu Vedic rites on 8th March 1992 at Adarsha Vivaha Karyalaya above Khandelwal Sweet Shop, Opposite Station, Thane (West). The Petitioner has produced a certified copy of her marriage certificate which was issued by the Marriage Registrar, Thane. The marriage is shown to have been solemnised on 8th March 1992. The Petitioner had three children from the said marriage. The Petitioner has produced the birth certificates of her three children. The Petitioner would, therefore, be the legally wedded wife of the said deceased Santosh Shirke.

3. The Respondent filed her application being Miscellaneous Petition No.31 of 2007 claiming that she was married to the deceased in Ratnagiri. Her marriage was unregistered. She has not given the date of her marriage. She has produced a certificate of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, village Chiveli, Taluka Chiplun, District Ratnagiri. She also claims to be having three children from her union with the deceased being Priyanka, Dipali and Heeramb Shirke. She has produced copies of the birth certificates of the three children issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Chiplun. She claims that the deceased had failed and neglected to maintain her as his wife and she had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and obtained a maintenance order from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chiplun in Miscellaneous Petition No.41 of 2004. She has relied upon a copy of the order dated 19th May 2005 granting her maintenance of Rs.1500/- and granting her children maintenance of Rs.750/- each.

4. It can be seen that the deceased lived with the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. He has begotten three children each from his union with the Petitioner and the Respondent.

5. It may be mentioned that the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, which is produced by the Respondent is not the proof of her marriage. It only shows that as per the electoral voters’ list she is shown to be residing with the deceased. The certificate of the village Sarpanch shows that she was the first wife of the deceased without reference to any Government record kept in the normal course of the conduct of the Government. Both these certificates cannot be accepted as proof of her marriage.

6. However, it is seen that she has begotten three children in the years 1987, 1993 and 1995, showing her as their mother and the deceased as their father. These certificates and also the voters’ list reflected in the certificate of the Gram Panchayat show continuous residence of the Respondent with the deceased. The certificates would show that the children were begotten from her union with the deceased. There would be presumption of legitimacy of the children of the Respondent, though marriage of the Respondent with the deceased, if at all, would be void.

7. The brief and precise Supreme Court judgment in the case of Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527, considered the presumption of wedlock and the consequent legitimacy of the children. It was observed that there was a strong presumption of lawful wedlock between a man and a woman who lived together for 50 years. However, that was not a case of two marriages of a single man.

8. In the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar, decided on 27th January 2000, the Supreme Court considered the case o