Children Of Live-In Relationship Couple Have Right To Paternal Property Says Supreme Court

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that if a man and woman cohabited for a long period, their son cannot be denied the shares in the ancestral properties.

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Kerala High Court order that denied property rights to a man as he was an illegitimate son of a couple who did not marry, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said the couple in question had cohabited for a very long time to make their relationship as good as a married couple.

Representational Image

40 year old case

¡°It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act,¡± a bench of Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Vikram Nath said.

The case has been going on for nearly 40 years.

A trial court in Kerala had held that the complainant who was born as the son of a coupe who cohabited for long but was never officially married was entitled to get a share of the ancestral property.

This was however, challenged by the family in the Kerala High Court, which in 2009 held that the position of one of the first parties to be of an illegitimate child, his heir would not be entitled to a share in the coparcenary property.

PTI

What the SC said

On Monday the SC set aside this ruling and said, ¡°where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.¡±

Such a presumption could be drawn under the Evidence Act also, it said, adding although, the presumption is rebuttable and ¡°a heavy burden lies¡± on the person who is disputing such a marriage.

Representational Image

Don't delay initiating final decree proceedings

While dealing with the matter, the top court also took strong exception to the delay in initiating the final decree proceedings by the trial court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in deciding partition lawsuits.

The apex court said that in a partition suit, all the courts across the country should start the process of passing the final decree just after the initial ones to avoid delay in the justice delivery.

The trial courts, while deciding the partition lawsuits, first pass the preliminary decree which declares the rights or shares of the parties to the partition.

For more on news, sports and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News.