UDAY GUPTA versus AYSHA & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 21-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 843 
UDAY GUPTA 
v. 
AYSHA & ANR. 
(SLP (Crl.) No. 3390 of 2014) 
APRIL 21, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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: 
2010 (10) SCR 30 
2010 (7) SCR 154 
Relied on 
Relied on 
843 
Para 7 
Para 7 
G 
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: 
"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, other

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.