Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31991
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Sri A.Suryanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Sri K.S.Murthy – Respondent
O.S.No.167 of 2002 | O.P.No.1246 of 2010 | O.S. No.13 of 1999 | O.P.No.1248 of 2010 | O.P.No.182 of 1998
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri A.Suryanarayana
For the Respondents: Sri K.S.Murthy
Continuous cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage; the burden of proof lies on the party disputing its validity, which must be substantiated by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 18 and 20 - Validity of marriage and maintenance - The Family Court dismissed the husband’s suit to declare the marriage invalid, affirming the marriage was valid as per Hindu customs and rites; maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month granted to the wife and children. (Paras 4, 12, 36, 54)
(B) Presumption of Marriage - Continuous cohabitation of parties raises a presumption of a valid marriage; burden lies on the party disputing the marriage to prove otherwise. (Paras 43, 52)
(C) Evidence - The husband failed to produce any witness to substantiate his claims regarding the invalidity of marriage; the Family Court relied on the evidence presented by the wife. (Paras 26, 54)
Facts of the case:
The appellant/husband contested the validity of his marriage to the respondent/wife, which he claimed was a mere statement of friendship rather than a legal marriage. The respondent sought restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance, which the Family Court upheld.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court found the marriage was valid as per Hindu customs, dismissed the husband's suit, and granted maintenance to the wife and children.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the marriage and the entitlement to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that continuous cohabitation creates a presumption of marriage, which the husband failed to rebut with evidence.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the appeals and common order (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. wife's claims and husband's counterarguments (Para 7 , 9 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 8 , 12 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. legal requirements for a valid hindu marriage (Para 19 , 24 , 25 , 50) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeals (Para 55) |
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The lis involved in all the three appeals and parties are one and the same, therefore, they were heard together and decided by way of this common judgment.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.167 of 2002, O.P.No.1246 of 2010 (O.S. No.13 of 1999) and O.P.No.1248 of 2010 (O.P.No.182 of 1998) by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/husband preferred these appeals against the respondent/wife and children as follows:
i) The respondent/wife has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide O.P.No.182 of 1998 (New O.P.No.1248 of 2010) against the appellant/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Likewise, the respondent/wife and her two sons filed a suit vide O.S.No.13 of 1999 (New O.P.No.1246 of 2010 against the appellant/husband under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance.
ii) The appellant/husband has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.167 of 2002 seeking to declare the marriage certificate dated 13.09.1991 of the parties is not valid, there is no matrimonial status between them and also to declare that the respondent/wife is not entitled to claim any benefit of matrimonial status as wife.
4. Vide common order dated 16.03.2011, the learned Family Court, dismissed O.S.No.167 of 2002 and allowed O.P.No.1246 of 2010 granting an amount of Rs.3,000/- each per month to the wife and two children from 09.03.1999 to February, 2011 towards maintenance. Learned Family Judge held that Spandan, son of the appellant and the respondent, has become major, therefore, he is not entitled for maintenance from March, 2011. Learned Family Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the respondent/wife and Surya (till her marriage is performed) from March, 2011 on or before 10th day of every month regularly. Considering the fact that the appellant salary was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month, learned Family Court held that respondent/wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month life-long. The maintenance amount already paid shall be deducted from total arrears of maintenance.
5. Vide the said common order, learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.1248 of 2010 filed by the respondent /wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights directing the appellant/husband to take respondent to his company within two months from the said order.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order in O.P.No.1248 of 2010, the appellant/husband has filed F.C.A. No.258 of 2011, in O.P.No.1246 of 2010, he filed F.C.A. No.291 of 2011 and in O.S.No.167 of 2002, he preferred F.C.A. No.312 of 2011. It is relevant to note that in the aforesaid appeals there is no interim order.
7. The contentions/pleadings of the wife in counter, written statement and petitions in the above said Ops are as follows:
i) Her marriage with the appellant was performed on 13.09.1991 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam, Guntur. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage was consummated and they were blessed with two sons i.e. Spandan and Surya. Immediately, after the marriage, they shifted their residence to Mahabubnagar where the appellant used to work in P.G.College as Lecturer. The appellant met with an accident and his leg was fractured. He was completely bed ridden for four months. With the sincere efforts of the respondent/wife even sacrificing her p
