Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 33 ! OF "!#$ (Crl M.P. No.%&#' o( "!

#$) Uday Gupta Versus Aysha & Anr. …Respondents …Petitioner

ORDER

Permission to file special leave petition is granted. This petition has been filed by an Advocate of this though not a party before the !adras "igh ourt

ourt #herein the riminal

$udgment impugned dated %&.'.()%* had been passed in

R. . +o.'&, of ())& ma-ing certain observation regarding the relationship bet#een man and #oman and particularly the institution of marriage. !r. !.R. alla. learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the "igh ourt

Page 1

that /a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be follo#ed and subse0uently solemni1ed2 are not legally tenable. 3t has been pointed out by !r. alla. learned senior counsel that such

observations demolish the very institution of marriage itself. and therefore. are liable to be set aside. 3n vie# of the nature of the order #e propose to pass. #e do not consider it necessary to issue notice to anyone. 4e have gone through the $udgment and order impugned and perused the record of the case. 4e are of the vie# that such observations had been made in the facts of that case. 3n fact. #hat the learned 5udge #anted to say is that if a man and #oman are living together for a long time as husband and #ife. though never married. there #ould be a presumption of marriage and their children could not be called to be illegitimate. 6uch a vie# stands fully fortified by a very large number of $udgments. This ourt in Ma)a* Mo+a* S,*-+ . Or/. 0. Ra1*, 2a*t . A*r.. A3R ()%) 6 (7** held as under89 /The courts have consistently held that the la# presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage. #hen a man and #oman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. "o#ever. such presumption can be
(
Page 2

rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. :Vide8 !ohabbat Ali ;han v. !ohd. 3brahim ;han. A3R %7(7 P %*<= Go-alchand v. Parvin ;umar. A3R %7<( 6 (*%= 6.P.6. >alasubramanyam v. 6uruttayan. :%77,? % 6 ,')= Ranganath Parmesh#ar Panditrao !ali v. @-nath Ga$anan ;ul-arni. :%77'? & 6 'A%= and 6obha "ymavathi Bevi v. 6etti Gangadhara 6#amy & Crs.. :())<? ( 6 (,,?.2 3n 3+arat+a Mat+a . A*r. 0. R. V,1a4a Ra*-a*at+a* . Or/.. A3R ()%) 6 ('A<. this ourt dealt #ith the legitimacy of the children born out of such relationship observing8 /Thus. it is evident that 6ection %' of the :"indu !arriage? Act intends to bring about social reforms. conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children. other#ise treated as illegitimate. as its prime ob$ect.2 3n the instant case. the "igh ourt made the aforesaid

observations in the facts of that case as the alleged marriage tooplace in %77, and t#o children #ere born in %77' and %777 respectively. Therefore. the observations made by the "igh ourt in the said $udgment are restricted to the facts of that case and do not lay do#n the la# of universal application. 3n vie# of the above. #e do not deem it necessary to consider the case any further.

*
Page 3

4ith these observations. the special leave petition stands disposed of. .........................555555..J. (DR. 3.S. CHAUHAN) .............555555.555J. (J. CHELAMES6AR) Ne7 Del+,8 Apr,l "#8 "!#$

,
Page 4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful