The main legal point established in the judgment is the strong presumption of a valid marriage when a man and woman live together as husband and wife for a long time, and the burden on the party seeking to deprive the relationship of legal origin to rebut this presumption with clear, cogent, and satisfactory evidence.

G. N. SABHAHIT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 16-6-1977 passed by the principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in M. C. No. 20 of 1972, on his file, dismissed the petition of the petitioner-wife instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 2 ) SMT. Parameshwari Bai, the petitioner, averred that she was married by her father when she was a girl of 7 years to one Sakharam of Madras, a processor in CT61d. She got a sort by name shankar Rao by him and when her son was 7 months old. her husband died in an accident. Consequently, she had to return to. Her parents'. house. ' Her son was brought up in her parents' house. Later on, in about the year 1946, when she was so staying in her parents' house, one venkoba Rao, a family friend, introduced to the members of the family the respondent in the petition, namely Muthoji Rao Scindia, who was then the District Superintendent of Police of mysore. The respondent was introduced. to her father and thereafter , he started visiting the house often. Venkoba Rao asked, her whether she. Would be Willing to, marry the respondent. For one or two years she did not give her consent: stating that she had to consult her parents. Venkoba Rao suggested to her that there was nothing wrong in a widow's remarriage and gave some instances of eminent persons like Karnaladevi Chattopadhyaya and Durgabai Deshmukh etc. In the meanwhile, the respondent also persuaded her to marry. Him and sought her consent. Accordingly. , after consulting her parents, the petitioner decided to marry him.

( 3 ) THE, marriage took place at Andal Mandir, Mysore, in the presence of Smt. Pandit sundaranima, who was in charge of that Ashram. A purohit officiated at the marriage, her parents, respondent's mother, Barister Srikantalah of Bangalore and, others were present. The marriage was not arranged on, large scale for. obvious reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent lived as husband and wife for more than two decades. The respondent treated her as a beloved wife, Even he got performed'. with her his 60th birth day in the year 1962, Ex. p-19 is the invitation issued by the mother of respondent inviting relatives and friends to attend shastipoorth. Shanthi ceremony on 26-4-1962, in the morning at 9-20. It is sent with best compliments of Mr. Muthoji Rao Scindia Mrs. Prameswari Bai M. Scindia. It is further averred that Mangalya Sootra Dharana was performed in the course of the ceremony. Exs. P-20 to P~32 and Ex. p-36, are the photos taken' on that occasion. Even after performing the shastipoorthi Shanthi ceremony, the petitioner and the respondent lived together happily without any misunderstanding between them. In the month of December, 1971, however, the respondent left the house. The respondent proceeded to Bhadravathi stating that one Chavan friend of his was not well. For 20 days, he did not return. Being apprehensive called the brother of the respondent name Achutha Rao and requested him to make enquiries. After a couple of days, she received a letter from the respondent as per Ex. p-47. Thereafter he returned on Monday next and on return he asserted that he could not stay with the petitioner and asked her to leave the house. She asserted her right and then he left the house. Thus, the misunderstandings developed till at last he started troubling her to leave the house. Hence, she instituted the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for restitution of conjugal rights as to respondent ,started living away from the house. ,

( 4 ) THE petition was instituted on 10-4-1971 the respondent contested the petition by filing his statement of objection. According to him, there was no marriage between him and the petitioner he further asserted that at the time of filing Ns objections, the petitioner was. 62 years of age and he was 72 years of age. . He further asserted that the petitioner is widow having a son aged above 44 years. He had a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document