Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, made observations related to relationships of marriage like nature.

• The Madras High Court made observation in the case of P Jayachandran v. A Yesuranthinam (Died).

What is the Background of P Jayachandran v. A Yesuranthinam (Died) Case?

• A.Yesurathinam (plaintiff/respondent) filed a suit seeking declaration of title over a property and possession of the property from P.Jayachandran (defendant/appellant).
• Defendant/Appellant had executed a settlement deed (Ex.A2) transferring the property to Y.Margarette Arulmozhi, describing her as his wife. Margarette Arulmozhi later died on 24^th January 2013.
• Defendant/Appellant claimed he divorced his first wife Stella through a customary divorce and then married Margarette Arulmozhi. He relied on service records where Margarette had nominated him as her husband.
• Plaintiff/Respondent claimed that defendant/appellant and Margarette were only in a live-in relationship as defendant/appellant's marriage to Stella was still subsisting.
• The conflict arose because while defendant/appellant relied on Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) presumptions based on his long co-habitation with Margarette and her nominating him as husband in service records, the plaintiff/ respondent argued that this relationship did not amount to a valid marriage under the Christian laws.
• The trial court sided with plaintiff/respondent, holding that defendant/appellant's existing marriage was not dissolved as per the Divorce Act, 1869 thereby violating Section 60 of the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 which requires monogamy.
• Defendant/appellant then appealed to the High Court, which had to determine whether the presumptions under the IEA could override the express provisions of the Christian personal laws governing the validity of marriage.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Observations:
  • The court differentiated between a legally valid “marital relationship” and merely a “live-in” or “marriage-like relationship”.
    • It observed that the law has distinguished the rights and obligations flowing from a legally wedded marriage versus an informal live-in arrangement.
  • The court referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the court noted that while live-in relationships are not illegal, they cannot be equated to a legal marriage.
    • A legal marriage involves legal requirements of formality, publicity, exclusivity and binding legal consequences.
  • The court stated that a live-in relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties, unlike a legal marriage.
    • If one party decides they no longer wish to continue the live-in relationship, it ends.
  • On the other hand, a legally valid “marital relationship” continues despite differences or marital unrest, being based on law and not just an arrangement between parties.
  • The court observed that by entering into a live-in relationship with Margarette Arulmozhi despite being married to Stella, the defendant committed “an intentional tort of interference in the marital relationship” by alienating himself from his legal wife and children.
  • It noted the Supreme Court's view that not all live-in relationships can be considered “relationships in the nature of marriage”.
    • For a relationship to be treated as akin to marriage, it must meet certain criteria like exclusivity, being otherwise qualified to marry, and public conduct showing them as akin to spouses.
• Judgment:
  • The court finally said, mere entries in service records nominating defendant/appellant as Margarette's husband do not establish a legal marriage between them.
  • The settlement deed (Ex.A2) made Margarette Arulmozhi the owner of the property.
    • After her death, her father plaintiff/respondent is the legal heir entitled to the property under the Indian Succession Act.
  • The appeal by defendant/appellant was dismissed and the trial court's decree declaring plaintiff/respondent’s title over the property was confirmed.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in the Case?

Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA):

• Section 114 allows the court to presume the existence of certain facts based on the natural course of events/human conduct.
• It states that, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case
• Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with this provision.

Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA):

• Section 122 states that for a gift of immovable property to be valid, the transfer must be effected by a registered deed and the property's possession must be delivered to the transferee.

Section 42 of Indian Succession Act, 1925:

• Section 42 gives priority to the intestate's father as the first legal heir to inherit their property.
• Section 45 provides that if the father is dead, the property devolves equally upon the mother and children of any predeceased children.

Section 5 and 60 of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 :

• Section 5 prescribes the formalities for solemnizing a Christian marriage.
• Section 60 additionally requires that at the time of marriage, neither party should have a living spouse from an earlier marriage.
• It upholds the principle of monogamy - that a person cannot have two spouses at the same time.
• Any marriage contracted during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage would be considered void.

Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869:

• Section 10 lays down the specific grounds on which a Christian marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce from a competent court.
• These grounds include adultery, cruelty, desertion for 2+ years, ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion etc.
• The Act does not recognize customary forms of divorce as may be permitted in other personal laws like Hindu law.
• To contract a second marriage, a Christian has to first obtain a valid divorce decree dissolving the earlier marriage.