Child Born In Live-In Relationship Has Right to Ancestral Property, Rules Supreme Court

INTRODUCTION

With societal modernization and globalization, live-in relationships are no longer stigmatized as they once were. However, this evolving social structure has posed challenges for the judiciary, particularly concerning the legal status and rights of partners and their children. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors, clarified an important aspect of inheritance law by ruling that Child Born In Live-In Relationship Has Right to Ancestral Property, Rules Supreme Court

This verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath while deciding an appeal from the Kerala High Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involved a property dispute in a Calicut Thiyya family governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. Kattukandi Edathil Karanan Vaidyar had four sons: Damodaran, Achuttan, Sekharan, and Narayan. The dispute arose when Krishnan claimed a share in the family property as the legitimate son of Damodaran and Chiruthakutty, who allegedly married in 1940. Krishnan was born in 1942.

After Damodaran’s death, Krishnan and his mother moved away, and following his mother’s death in 1985, he demanded his share in the ancestral property. The defendants denied his claim, arguing that Damodaran and Chiruthakutty had not been legally married, thereby rendering Krishnan illegitimate and ineligible for coparcenary rights.

TRIAL COURT AND HIGH COURT FINDINGS

The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim, holding that prolonged cohabitation between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty raised a presumption of marriage, thereby legitimizing Krishnan’s status. The court directed that the property be divided, awarding a share to the plaintiff.

The Kerala High Court, however, overturned this decision, reasoning that there was insufficient proof of a lawful marriage. It classified Krishnan as an illegitimate child, denying him inheritance rights. Aggrieved by this finding, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PRECEDENTS

The case required interpretation of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows a presumption of legitimacy in cases of long cohabitation, and provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governing coparcenary rights. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XX, Rule 18), relating to partition, was also relevant.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1978), which held that prolonged cohabitation gives rise to a strong presumption of marriage, and the burden of proving otherwise lies on the person challenging it.

SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT

The Apex Court restored the trial court’s decision, ruling that the long-standing relationship between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty created a legal presumption of marriage. Krishnan, being born during this union, was deemed a legitimate child under Hindu law, entitled to a share in the ancestral property.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RULING

This judgment strengthens the legal status of children born from live-in relationships by equating prolonged cohabitation with marriage for inheritance purposes. It aligns with Tulsa & Ors v. Durghatiya & Ors (2008), where the Court recognized children born from long-term live-in relationships as legitimate heirs.

The decision reflects a progressive interpretation of personal laws, recognizing changing social norms while ensuring that children are not deprived of property rights due to the marital status of their parents. It also reinforces the presumption in favor of marriage over concubinage, thereby granting greater legal security to live-in partners and their offspring in modern society.

Case title- [Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors"]