Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
K.G SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
Sofika Antony – Respondent
MATRIMONIAL APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2015 | MAT.APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.S.Sreekumar, Sri.P.Martin Jose, Sri.P.Prijith, Sri.Thomas P.Kuruvilla
For the Respondents: Smt.C.G.Bindu, Sri.Azad Babu R., Sri.K.T.Thomas
Insufficient evidence undermined the claim of a valid marriage, necessitating further proceedings to explore additional evidence and testimonies regarding marital status.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Marital Status - The Family Court granted a decree recognizing the marital status of the petitioners based on alleged marriage of the 1st petitioner to the deceased. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the marriage, contradicting the Family Court's ruling. (Paras 1, 12)
(B) Evidence - The court noted that the 1st petitioner failed to prove marriage due to lack of credible documents and testimony. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The original petition sought declaration of marital status and property claims related to late Antony Pailee's estate. The 1st petitioner asserts marriage in 1968 while the 1st respondent disputes this.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Family Court's earlier ruling was unsupported by evidence. The judgment was set aside and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues: Whether the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Antony Pailee and the validity of property assignments.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the evidence presented did not substantiate the claim of a valid marriage, ruling that the Family Court's conclusions were not backed by sufficient material.
Result: Appeals allowed; matter remanded for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of marriage and inheritance rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. insufficient evidence of valid marriage. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding evidential deficiencies. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. appeals allowed; case remanded for further proceedings. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition, seeking declaration of the status of the petitioners, reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect of the scheduled immovable properties, was decreed by the Family Court. The 1st and 2nd respondents in the original petition are the appellants in the respective appeals.
2. The plaint schedule properties, four in number, belonged to late Antony Pailee. He was employed in the Indian Air Force. The 1st petitioner claims to be his legally wedded wife, their marriage having been solemnised on 23.10.1968 at Jorhat, Assam. Petitioners 2 and 3 are claimed to be the children born in the wedlock. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, claiming to be the wife and sole legal heir of late Antony Pailee, has assigned the petition schedule items 2 and 3 to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners seek a declaration of the marital status of the 1st petitioner and that petitioners 2 and 3 are the children born in the wedlock. They also seek for a declaration that the assignments in favour of the 2nd respondent is void, for a mandatory injunction to evict the respondents from the properties and for a prohibitory injunction against trespass into and alienation of the plaint schedule properties.
3. The 1st respondent denied the claims of the petitioners. The claim that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Antony Pailee, was denied. She claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Antony Pailee, their marriage having been held on 25.03.1992. The 2nd respondent claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for value.
4. The Family Court upheld the petitioners' claim and granted decree of declaration as sought for. A decree was also granted for recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction.
5. We have heard Shri.Azad Babu R. and Sri.S.Harikrishnan, the learned counsel for the respective appellants, and Smt.Bindu C.G., the learned counsel on behalf of respondents.
6. The 1st petitioner claims to be the wife of late Antony Pailee. With regard to their marriage, it is pleaded at paragraph 3 of the original petition thus;
“The 1st petitioner and her husband belong to Roman Catholic community. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.10.1968 at Jorhat, Assam in the presence of their kith and kin.”
To prove the marriage held on 23.10.1968, no documents were produced by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner was admittedly then a Muslim. The respondent produced Ext.B2, a marriage agreement dated 23.10.1970 executed between Antony Pailee and the 1st petitioner. It is beyond cavil that there could not be a valid legal marriage under Ext.B2.
7. During the time of evidence, the petitioners produced Ext.A10 baptism certificate of the 1st petitioner issued from the church to the effect that she was baptised on 07.06.1986. Ext.A11 is the extract of marriage register, issued from a Catholic church at Jorhat. Going by Ext.A11, the marriage of Antony Pailee with the 1st petitioner was solemnised on 25.01.1987. It is important to note that in the original petition, there is no plea with regard to baptism or the subsequent marriage on 25.01.1987. The genuineness of Exts.A10 and A11 is seriously challenged by the respondent. But for production of Exts.A10 and A11, there is no evidence to prove its genuineness. This is in the background of the fact that there is no plea with regard to such baptism and marriage. Therefore, on the above materials it cannot be held that there was a valid marriage between Antony Pailee and the 1st petitioner.
8. To find the marriage, the Family Court relied on Ext.A13 discharge certificate issued from the Indian Air Force to Shri.Antony Pailee and Ext.A14 pension certificate of Shri.Antony Pailee, wherein the 1st petition
