UDAY GUPTAversusAYSHA & ANR.

                   [2014] 3 S.C.R. 843


                     UDAY GUPTA                             A
                            v.
                    AYSHA & ANR.
              (SLP (Crl.) No. 3390 of 2014)
                     APRIL 21, 2014
                                                            B
  [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

     FAMILY LAW: Institution of marriage - In the impugned
order, the High Court made observation that a valid marriage
does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights C
pertaining to the married couple at:e to be followed and
subsequently solemnized - Instant SLP filed by Advocate not
party before the High Court challenging the said observations
- Held: Such observations had been made in the facts of that
case - In fact, the High Court observed that if a man and D
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 illegitimate -
High Court made the said observations as the alleged
marriage took place in 1994 and two children were born in . E
1996 and 1999 respectively - Therefore, the observations
made by the High Court in the said judgment were restricted
to the facts of that case and do not lay down the law of
universal application - Precedent - Presumption.

     Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr. AIR      F
2010 SC 2933 : 2010 (10) SCR 30; Bharatha Matha & Anr.
v. R. Vijaya Ranganathan & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2685 : 2010
(7) SCR 154 - relied oh.

    Case Law Reference:                                     G
    2010 (10) SCR 30        Relied on           Para 7
    2010 (7) SCR 154        Relied on           Para 7

                           843                              H
    844      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal)
    No. 3390 of 2014.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 674 of
B 2007.

        M.R. Calla, Shivani M. Lal, M.K. Tripathi, Pratiksha
    Sharma, Ankit Achariya, Gaurav Dave in the Petitioner Uday
    Gupta (Petitioner-In-Person).

          The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                 ORDER

          1. Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

         2. 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.

          3. Mr. M.R. Calla, learned senior counsel appearing for the
    petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the High
    Court 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.

        4. In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass,
    we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to anyone.

        5. We have gone through the judgment and order
    impugned and perused the record of the case.
             UDAY GUPTA v. AYSHA & ANR.                         845


     6. We are of the view that such observations had been             A
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   B
by a very large number of judgments.

    7. 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          C
     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 rebutted by
     leading unimpeachable evidence. (Vide: Mohabbat Ali
     Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135;                      D
     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 Sabha
     Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors.,                  E
     (2005) 2 sec 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:
                                                                       F
     "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."
                                                                       G
    8. In the instant case, the High Court made the aforesaid
observations jn 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
                                                                       H
    846     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A High Court in the said judgment are restricted to the facts of
  that case and do not lay dowri the law of universal application.

        9. In view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to
    consider the case any further.
B       10. With these observations, the special leave petition
    stands disposed of.

    D.G.                                      S.L.P. disposed of.