Judicial emphasis on the necessity of documentary evidence in establishing marital relationships for legal claims.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the rejection order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent through e-mail, whereby the petitioner’s request for issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate was rejected and to quash the same. The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of herself and her daughter, Thamilarasi, as the legal heirs of the petitioner's deceased husband, Rasukutti, son of Srinivasan.

2. It is stated that the petitioner had a love affair with one Rasukutti and they got married in the presence of their close relatives at a village temple. Out of the said wedlock, a female child, Thamilarasi, was born. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband, Rasukutti, died in a road accident on 31.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent seeking issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of the deceased Rasukutti. However, the said application was rejected on the ground of non- submission of proof of marriage. Challenging the said rejection order dated

13.09.2023, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was known to the deceased’s father. He further submitted that the 2^nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s request without conducting any proper enquiry in the locality and therefore, the impugned order arbitrary and perverse. It is also stated that the father of the deceased submitted a letter confirming the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the Birth Certificate of minor Thamilarasi, showing the names of her father and mother as Rasukutti and R. Kalaiarasi, was also produced before the 2^nd respondent, but the same was not considered. In view of the above, he prayed for setting aside the rejection order and for consequential directions to issue the Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner and her daughter.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not produced any valid or acceptable document to prove the marriage between herself and the deceased Rasukutti. In the absence of any such proof, the claim for Legal Heirship Certificate is untenable. He further submitted that the father of the deceased had only given an oral statement regarding the relationship, which cannot be treated as conclusive proof. He vehemently argued that no proof of marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Rasukutti has been submitted before the 2^nd respondent either from the father of the deceased or from the villagers and after conducting due enquiry, the 2^nd respondent has issued the rejection order dated

13.09.2023. Therefore, he submitted that the rejection order dated 13.09.2023 is legally sustainable and interference by this Court is unwarranted.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

6. From the records, it is seen that although it is claimed that a written letter from Srinivasan, father of the deceased, was submitted before the 2^nd respondent regarding the alleged marriage, the said letter does not contain any details of the marriage such as date, place, or witnesses. Further, marriage photographs have also not been produced before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner has not produced any acceptable document with regard to her claim of marriage with the deceased. It is settled position that the revenue authorities cannot issue Legal Heirship Certificate base