Validity of Customary Marriage and Right to Property: Supreme Court’s Key Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rathnamma & Ors. v. Sujathamma & Ors., examined whether a woman claiming to be the wife of a deceased man had any legal right to inherit his property. The case focused on proving the existence of a valid Hindu marriage, the legitimacy of a marriage agreement, and whether the claimant could inherit property as a legal heir.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over ancestral property held by Sonnappa, the father of Hanumanthappa. The plaintiff, Sujathamma, claimed that she was married to Hanumanthappa and was therefore entitled to his share of the property after his death in 1986. However, the defendants, including Hanumanthappa’s family, contested her marriage claim, arguing that no valid marriage had taken place.

The plaintiff relied on a registered agreement of marriage dated March 7, 1986, and a photograph to establish her marital status. The defendants contended that Hanumanthappa was unwell and incapable of marriage, and that Sujathamma’s claim was a fabricated attempt to secure property rights.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the plaintiff had legally married Hanumanthappa.
• Whether an agreement of marriage without customary ceremonies constituted a valid marriage under Hindu law.
• Whether Sujathamma, as the alleged wife, had a rightful claim to inherit Hanumanthappa’s share of the property.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Defendants)

The defendants, represented by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, argued:

• The plaintiff had no proof of a valid Hindu marriage, as required by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The registered marriage agreement was not equivalent to a valid marriage under Hindu law.
• The plaintiff was only 14 years old at the time of the alleged marriage, making her claim void under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish that the marriage was legally conducted, but she had failed to do so.
• Since the marriage was neither valid nor proven, the plaintiff had no legal right to inherit the property.

Arguments by the Respondents (Plaintiff – Sujathamma)

The plaintiff, represented by Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, countered:

• She and Hanumanthappa had entered into a legal agreement of marriage, and the family had accepted their relationship.
• A photograph showing them together was sufficient proof of their marital bond.
• The concept of marriage age was directory, not mandatory, under Hindu law, and minor marriages were still considered valid.
• Since she had cohabited with Hanumanthappa, her marital status should be presumed valid.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Importance of Customary Marriage Ceremonies

The Court ruled that mere registration of a marriage agreement does not constitute a valid Hindu marriage. The essential ceremonies, including saptapadi (taking seven steps around the sacred fire), must be performed.

“The plaintiff has not led any evidence of solemnization of marriage in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. An agreement of marriage, even if registered, is not sufficient to establish a legal marriage.”

2. Legal Age Requirement

The Court noted that under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the minimum age for marriage is 18 years for women and 21 years for men. Since Sujathamma was below 18 at the time, the marriage, if it occurred, was voidable.

3. Burden of Proof Lies on the Plaintiff

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the person making a claim must prove it:

“The burden to prove marriage was on the plaintiff alone. Since the plaintiff’s claim was based on her alleged marriage to Hanumanthappa, she had to establish the marriage’s validity.”

The Court held that the evidence, including a mere photograph and an agreement, was insufficient.

4. No Inheritance Rights Without a Valid Marriage

The Court ruled that since the plaintiff failed to prove a valid marriage, she had no right to inherit property from Hanumanthappa:

“In the absence of proof of solemnization of customary ceremonies and rites, the plaintiff cannot succeed in inheriting Hanumanthappa’s property.”

Judgment and Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the trial court’s decision. It held that:

• The plaintiff failed to prove a valid marriage.
• The agreement of marriage and photograph were insufficient proof.
• The plaintiff had no legal right to inherit Hanumanthappa’s share of the property.

This judgment reinforces the requirement of customary marriage ceremonies under Hindu law and clarifies that mere registration of an agreement does not create a legal marriage. The ruling also highlights the importance of age requirements and proper legal documentation for marriage claims.

Petitioner Name: Rathnamma & Ors..
Respondent Name: Sujathamma & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka, India.
Judgment Date: 15-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rathnamma & Ors. vs Sujathamma & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category