A live-in relationship does not confer legal marriage status if one party has a living spouse, and customary divorce is not recognized under the Indian Divorce Act.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 33 of 2013 dated 12.02.2016, on the file of the II Additional District and Session Judge, Vellore at Ranipet and thereby to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit O.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Session Judge, Vellore at Ranipet.

The defeated defendants is the Appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

The brief facts leading to filing of the Appeal Suit as under:

2(a). The first Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2013. He filed a suit for declaration of title of the Plaintiff over the suit property and for directing the Defendant to deliver possession of the suit property and restrained the Defendant from alienating the suit property.

2(b). The Plaintiff (Respondent herein) is the father of one Y.Margarette Arulmozhi and she was employed as a Head Mistress in the Panchayat Union School, Nagavedu, Arakkonam Taluk. She lived together with one P.Jayachandran (Defendant), who is already married person. Since Jayachandran's marriage with one Stella was not dissolved according to the Indian Divorce Act, Jayachandran and Margarette Arulmozhi were living together without any marriage. 2(c). Jayachandan had executed a settlement deed in favour of the daughter of the Plaintiff under Ex.A2 dated 09.08.2010 and thereafter she died on 24.01.2013. Under Ex.A3 dated 02.04.2013, the settlement deed executed by Jayachandran was unilaterally cancelled, after the death of the beneficiary. Since the Plaintiff viz. Yesurathinam is the father, as per provision of the Indian Succession Act, he is the sole legalheir of the deceased Margarette Arulmozhi and prayed to decree the suit.

3. The Defendant filed written statement contending that Jayachandran and Margarette Arulmozhi were lived as husband and wife and based upon their relationship Arulmozhi nominated him for the special provident fund cum gratuity and for family pension with school authorities. The certified copies of provident fund and other things have been filed before the Trial Court as Ex.B.17 to Ex.B.21. Based upon the same, on her death, the pension has been given to the Defendant, as per the proceedings of the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Nemili under Ex.B.24 thereby their relationship was recognized as husband and wife and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. After trial, the learned Trial Judge, has come to conclusion that the alleged marriage between the defendant and Margarette Arulmozhi was not proved in the manner known to law. Further in view of the admission of D.W.1 in the witness box that there was no dissolution of marriage between Stella and Jayachandran and hence 'living relationship' (between Jayachandran and Margarette Arulmozhi) was not converted into legitimate marriage. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is the father of the deceased Margarette Arulmozhi by virtue of Ex.A2/settlement deed entitled to decree of title.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Trial Court has committed error in not looking into the fact that Margerette Arulmozhi during her lifetime nominated the Appellant/Defendant as her nominee in service records as her husband and the Plaintiff/Respondent has not objected to such nomination created by the Margerette Arulmozhi (now deceased) Prior to the filing of the suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff admitted in Ex.B15 which is a “Thanks giving ceremony invitation” wherein the said Margerette Arulmozhi is described as wife of Appellant/Defendant. Further contended that the lower court failed to appreciate Ex. A23 in proper manner and under Section 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, no where provides that marriage amongst Indian Christians shall be proved only in the manner as stated in the Section 5 of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff mad