Point of Law: Marriage – Proof of - while defining the word 'solemnize' in connection with a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, held inter alia, that word 'solemnize' means in connection with a marriage, 'to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form'

JUDGMENT :

Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J.

The marital status of the appellant and the first respondent is in dispute in this matrimonial appeal.

2. One Mr.S.Reghunathan, an employee of South Western Railways, died on 31/1/2009 while in service. After his death, the appellant as well as the first respondent claiming themselves to be his legally wedded wife came forward and raised rival claims before the Railways, the respondents 2 to 4, 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 the appellant and 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 said judgment is under challenge in this matrimonial appeal.

3. We have heard Sri.Joseph George, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jacob P.Alex, the learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. Both the appellant and the first respondent contended that they are the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan and two children each were born in their respective wedlock and, as such, they alone are entitled to receive the family pension and other service benefits of the deceased. According to the appellant, the marriage between her and late Reghunathan was solemnized at Kateelu Temple, Mangalore on 30/5/1977, two children were born out of the said wedlock in the years 1980 and 1984 and they lived as husband and wife at the official quarters of late Reghunathan till his death. Per contra, the first respondent contended that the marriage between her and late Reghunathan was solemnized on 13/7/1981 at Aranmula Parthasarathy Temple as per the customs prevailing among Hindu Nair community, two children were born out of the said wedlock in the years 1983 and 1987 and they were living as husband and wife till the death of late Reghunathan. Both the appellant and the first respondent disputed and denied the alleged marriage between late Reghunathan and the other spouse. In short, both alleged that the status of the other one is only that of a concubine. The court below after evaluation of the evidence on record found that the first respondent has succeeded in proving the marriage between her and late Reghunathan at Parthasarathy temple, Aranmula on 13/7/1981 in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies prevalent among Hindu Nair community and that there is evidence to show that they lived together thereafter as husband and wife. The court below further found that the appellant failed to prove valid ceremonial marriage and mere living together by her with late Reghunathan will not confer her the status of a wife. Accordingly, the court below declared the status of the first respondent as the legally wedded wife of late Reghunathan. The consequential reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction sought for were also granted.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the court below was unreasonable and unrealistic in the appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant clearly proves the solemnization of marriage between her and late Reghunathan on 30/5/1977 and that they lived together as husband and wife since then and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The counsel further submitted that the law presumes in favour of marriage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously even if the direct evidence of marriage, if any, is unsatisfactory. The counsel also submitted that the e