Registration of a marriage presumes validity under the law unless disproven by evidence; cohabitation during a subsisting marriage lacks legal sanction.

J U D G M E N T

These two appeals arise out of the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, in O.S No.317/2016 and O.S No.471/2016. The facts in O.S No.471/2016 is a subject matter of R.S.A No.678/2005, therefore will be dealt with together with R.S.A No.640/2025 for disposal.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-

The appellant faced a suit for partition filed by the legal heirs of one Devaki. The defense raised by the appellant was that, he had married Devaki after following the ceremonies for making a Hindu marriage valid. The plaintiffs on other hand contended that, the appellant cannot lawfully marry Devaki, because, at that point of time, there was an earlier subsisting marriage with one Devi of Thiruvonapuram. In fact, out of the said marriage, the appellant had begotten children also and the said marriage was registered. When O.S No.317/2016 was pending, the appellant also instituted O.S No.471/2016 seeking for the declaration that, he is the sole legal heir of the deceased Devaki. Both the suits were tried together. The question before the courts was as to which marriage would prevail. The appellant on one hand contended that the first marriage with Devi, with whom he has eloped, was not performed following the religious ceremonies required for making the marriage valid. Though the said marriage was registered in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules , 1957, the appellant asserted that the said marriage was not preceded by any religious ceremonies. The plaintiffs in O.S No.317/2016 contended that the registration presupposes a valid marriage and therefore the cohabitation with Devaki will not lead to a presumption of marriage with the appellant herein. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant has not satisfactorily proved that the cohabitation with Devaki was after dissolving the first marriage with Devi through any process known to law. Accordingly, proceeded to consider the claim for partition on merits and found that the parties are following Marumakkathayam Law and thus decreed O.S No.317/2016 and dismissed O.S No.471/2016. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court preferred two appeals as A.S No.16/2019 and A.S No.17/2019 before the Additional District Court -III, Thalassery, which were also dismissed. Hence, these appeals.

3. Heard Shri.Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

4. Prima facie this Court felt that these appeals do not deserve any consideration, because, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. However, the learned counsel for the appellant raised certain legal points, which necessitated this Court to look deep into the issues in order to find out as to whether if any substantial question of law arises for consideration.

5. According to Shri.Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below misdirected itself to the entire issue. In fact, an issue regarding which marriage is legally sustainable was required to be framed by the trial court and the parties should have been given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first marriage though registered in terms of the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules , 1957, was not preceded by any customary rites and thereby the said marriage does not become valid in terms of Section

7 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955.

6. In support of