The case presented before the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal revolved around an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision. This appeal was against an order pertaining to a Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants, contesting a judgment and decree issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, which had been dismissed.
The central figure in this case was Late Subedar Bhave, who had enlisted in the Army in 1960. On July 17, 1972, he entered into marriage with Smt. Parvati, but she tragically passed away after a mere two and a half years. Subsequently, he wedded Smt. Anusuya. During his marriage to Anusuya, he entered into yet another marriage with appellant no.1. On January 25, 1984, Subedar Bhave was honorably discharged from service upon his request, receiving a monthly service pension of ₹376.
On November 15, 1990, Subedar Bhave and Anusuya mutually obtained a divorce decree, with him paying ₹15,000 as a lump sum to her. Following the divorce, Subedar Bhave pursued the removal of Anusuya’s name from official records and the inclusion of appellant no.1’s name in the Pension Payment Order (PPO).
In 2005, the appellants initiated a civil suit seeking a declaration and other directions related to the pension benefits due upon Subedar Bhave’s demise. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring their entitlement to the deceased’s terminal benefits. Importantly, it was noted that no claims had been made by Subedar Bhave’s ex-wife Anusuya regarding these benefits.
The respondents were dissatisfied with this decision and launched an appeal, which proved successful. The appellate court overturned the initial judgment and decree. The appellants subsequently challenged this outcome in the higher court, but their plea was rejected. However, through a Review Application, appellants No. 2 and 3 were eventually granted the rights to Late Subedar Bhave’s estate, currently held by the respondents.
The Supreme Court emphasized a well-established principle: the presumption of a valid marriage when a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for an extended period. While this presumption holds weight, it is not indisputable and can be rebutted. The party aiming to nullify the legal status of the relationship bears a substantial burden of proving the absence of marriage.
The bench found that despite the dissolution of Subedar Bhave’s marriage with Anusuya in 1990, he continued to live with appellant no.1 for eleven more years until his passing in 2001. Appellant no.1 was also the mother of his two children, appellants Nos. 2 and 3. These appellants were later granted rights to Subedar Bhave’s estate via a High Court order.
Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored the significance of evidence. Given Subedar Bhave’s actions—such as seeking to replace Anusuya’s name with appellant no.1’s in official records—it was reasonable to presume the validity of his marriage with appellant no.1. This presumption was further supported by the fact that Anusuya did not claim a pension following Subedar Bhave’s demise.