Page 1

   Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 3390 OF 2014 (Crl M.P. No.6817 of 2014)

Uday Gupta                                                     …Petitioner

Versus

Aysha & Anr.               …Respondents

O R D E R  

Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

This  petition  has  been  filed  by  an  Advocate  of  this  Court  

though  not  a  party  before  the  Madras  High  Court  wherein  the  

judgment  impugned  dated  17.6.2013  had  been  passed  in  Criminal  

R.C.  No.674  of  2007  making  certain  observation  regarding  the  

relationship between man and woman and particularly the institution  

of marriage.

Mr.  M.R.  Calla,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the High Court

Page 2

that  “a  valid  marriage  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  all  the  

customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed  

and subsequently  solemnized” are  not  legally  tenable.   It  has been  

pointed  out  by  Mr.  Calla,  learned  senior  counsel  that  such  

observations  demolish  the  very  institution  of  marriage  itself,  and  

therefore, are liable to be set aside.

In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not  

consider it necessary to issue notice to anyone.

We have gone through the judgment and order impugned and  

perused the record of the case.

We are of the view that such observations had been made in the  

facts of that case.  In fact, what the learned Judge wanted to say is that  

if a man and woman are living together for a long time as husband and  

wife, though never married, there would be a presumption of marriage  

and their children could not be called to be illegitimate.  Such a view  

stands fully fortified by a very large number of judgments.

This Court in Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant &  

Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2933 held as under:-

“The courts have consistently held that the law presumes  in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a  man  and  woman  have  cohabited  continuously  for  a  number  of  years.   However,  such  presumption  can  be  

2

Page 3

rebutted  by  leading  unimpeachable  evidence.  (Vide:  Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929  PC  135;  Gokalchand  v.  Parvin  Kumar,  AIR 1952  SC  231;  S.P.S.  Balasubramanyam  v.  Suruttayan,  (1994)  1  SCC  460;  Ranganath  Parmeshwar  Panditrao  Mali  v.  Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996) 7 SCC 681; and Sobha  Hymavathi  Devi  v.  Setti  Gangadhara  Swamy  &  Ors.,  (2005)  2 SCC 244).”

In  Bharatha Matha & Anr. v.  R. Vijaya Ranganathan &  

Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2685, this Court dealt with the legitimacy of the  

children born out of such relationship observing:

“Thus,  it  is  evident  that  Section  16  of  the  (Hindu  Marriage)  Act  intends  to  bring  about  social  reforms,  conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of  children,  otherwise  treated  as  illegitimate,  as  its  prime  object.”

In  the  instant  case,  the  High  Court  made  the  aforesaid  

observations  in  the facts  of  that  case  as  the alleged marriage  took  

place  in  1994  and  two  children  were  born  in  1996  and  1999  

respectively.  Therefore, the observations made by the High Court in  

the said judgment are restricted to the facts of that case and do not lay  

down the law of universal application.

In view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to consider  

the case any further.

3

Page 4

With  these  observations,  the  special  leave  petition  stands  

disposed of.   

.........................………………..J.                                                 (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                                        .............……………….………J.                    (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi, April 21, 2014  

4