JUDGMENT : A.K. Basheer, J. 1. 1970's - A Brahmin girl meets a Nair boy in a college campus at Calicut. Bitten by the love bug, they promise to each other to live together unto death. But the families of the young lovers had different ideas. Still the youngsters decide to defy their parents. 2. A typical Bollywood script of the 1970s, nay, relevant even for the 21st century. 3. The hero and heroine in this case started to live together as husband and wife and the script proceeded on predictable lines for a few years. The couple was blessed with a baby boy. But very soon the proverbial "seven-year itch" appears to have hit the young couple and they fell apart. The story took a dramatic turn when the young man despatched a communication informing the girl that he had taken an irrevocable decision to end the relationship between them. He reminded her that their relationship was only a "contractual arrangement". The girl, stung by the preposterous stand taken by the young man, reminded him about their customary marriage at Guruvayoor. But nothing could save the relationship and the young lovers drifted apart. Their young son who turned 19 took up cudgels with his father and filed a petition before the Family Court, Kozhikode to get his status declared as the legitimate son born in the legal wed lock between the two. The court below rejected the prayer for declaration. However respondent No.1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 54,000/- to his "illegitimate son" as past maintenance within a period of three months. Hence this appeal. 4. Appellant No.1 is the son and appellant No.2 is the mother. According to appellant No.2, she and respondent No.1 fell in love with each other while they were studying in Malabar Christian College, Kozhikode. They got married as per the rites and custom prevalent in the Hindu Religion at Sreekrishna Temple, Guruvayoor on December 21, 1976 in the presence of their friends and colleagues. Thereafter on January 22, 1977, about a month after the ceremony, "a marriage agreement" was registered at the Sub Registrar's office in Kozhikode. It was contended by appellant No.2 that she and respondent No.1 had started to live together as husband and wife in a rented house at Malaparamba in Kozhikode right from the day of their marriage. Thereafter on January 22, 1977, about a month after the ceremony, "a marriage agreement" was registered at the Sub Registrar's office in Kozhikode. It was contended by appellant No.2 that she and respondent No.1 had started to live together as husband and wife in a rented house at Malaparamba in Kozhikode right from the day of their marriage. A wedding reception was held in their rented house shortly after the marriage in which their close relatives also participated. Their son (appellant No.1) was born in the wed lock on March 20, 1982. But soon thereafter respondent No.1 started to drift away from her and the young child. 5. In January 1983, respondent No.1 issued a registered letter alleging that appellant No.2 had deserted him and left for her parental home without his consent or knowledge. He therefore informed appellant No.2 that he had taken an irrevocable decision to end the "contractual relationship" between them suppressing the fact that a customary marriage was held at Guruvayoor. A reply was sent by appellant No.2 reminding him about the customary marriage ceremony undergone by them and requesting him to reconsider his so called irrevocable decision. It was further averred in the petition that though respondent No.1 had been living with respondent No.2 as his wife and respondent No. was born in that relationship, both of them would never get the status of legitimate wife and child, since the marriage between her and respondent No.1 was still subsisting. Appellants contended that respondent No.1 was liable to pay maintenance to appellant No.1 at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per annum. They quantified the amount of maintenance at Rs. 3,90,000/- at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- for 13 years from age 5 till the attainment of majority of the minor. 6. The primary prayer in the petition was for a declaration that appellant No.1 was the legitimate son of respondent No.1 born to him in his legally wedded wife (appellant No.2). The other prayer was to grant a decree of injunction restraining the respondents from denying the legal status of the appellants as the legitimate son and legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and also prohibiting respondents 2 and from claiming the status of legally wedded wife and legitimate daughter of respondent No.1. 7. The other prayer was to grant a decree of injunction restraining the respondents from denying the legal status of the appellants as the legitimate son and legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and also prohibiting respondents 2 and from claiming the status of legally wedded wife and legitimate daughter of respondent No.1. 7. The primary contention raised by respondent No.1 in his counter statement was that no customary marriage ceremony was performed at Guruvayoor temple on December 21, 1976 as alleged in the petition. They had never lived as legally wedded wife and husband. But he admitted that a marriage agreement was executed between him and appellant No.2 on December 21, 1976. But according to respondent No.1, the said contract was not acted upon by both the parties and hence he issued a notice intimating his intention to put an end to the contractual relationship between them, if any. He further alleged that appellant No.2 abandoned his company on her own wish and at the instigation of her father. He further contended that he had entered into the marriage agreement without the knowledge of their respective parents. He admitted the paternity of appellant No.1. However, he alleged that continuous interference of the father of the appellant No.2 and her stubborn attitude "put an end" to the contract of marriage and the limited life as man and woman living together ended in the year 1989. It was further contended by respondent No.1 that the petition filed before the Family Court was intended to wreck his marriage with respondent No.2 and also to cause disrepute to him and to his family. He also denied his liability to maintain appellant No.1. 8. Appellant No.2 got herself examined as P.W.1 and two of her witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W. .Exts.A-1 to A-7 were also marked on her side. Respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and his witness as R.W.2. Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side. The marriage agreement was summoned from the Registrar's office and marked as Ext.X1. As has been noticed already, the court below declined the main prayer for a decree of declaration and injunction holding that the claim of appellant No.2 was barred by limitation. Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side. The marriage agreement was summoned from the Registrar's office and marked as Ext.X1. As has been noticed already, the court below declined the main prayer for a decree of declaration and injunction holding that the claim of appellant No.2 was barred by limitation. As regards the claim of appellant No.1, the court below held that he would not be entitled to get the status of a legitimate son, since he was not born in a legal marriage even though his paternity is admitted by respondent No.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether the above findings are legally valid and sustainable. We have heard Sri. Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Krishnanunni, learned counsel who appeared for the respondents. 9. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the ultimate decision in this case will have far reaching or calamitous consequence on the two families which are involved in this traumatic and unfortunate legal imbroglio. What makes it more unpleasant is the involvement of two youngsters-a 19 year old boy on one side who seeks to get his legitimacy declared in the eye of law. The dilemma of the young boy is perfectly understandable. He wants the entire world to know that he was born in a legal and legitimate marital relationship. He does not want to be labelled as a legal non-entity brought into existence by his father in a freak relationship which our traditional society and culture will never accept. 10. Pitted against the young boy is a young minor girl who for no fault of hers is hauled up before the court to face the gloomy prospect of being declared as an illegitimate child if appellant No.1 succeeds. The society has thus far accepted and recognised her as the legitimate daughter of her parents born in a wedlock. But she is now facing the music in this bizarre drama on the centre stage on which her parents and herself, apart from her step brother and his mother are also trying desperately to don the mantle of legitimacy. But why all this? And at what cost? We posed this question to the learned counsel on either side and requested them to find out an amicable solution. They must have deliberated with their parties. But why all this? And at what cost? We posed this question to the learned counsel on either side and requested them to find out an amicable solution. They must have deliberated with their parties. Both sides however reported later that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Thus we are called upon to decide the issue. 11. Undoubtedly and inevitably the court has to take up such onerous judicial responsibilities in certain situations; however tricky and daunting the problem or the task may be. The kind of abiding faith and confidence that the citizenry of this country has reposed in the system is such that the decision making process cannot be avoided. It is not in dispute that appellant no.2 and respondent No.1 lived together for nearly 5 to 6 years. While appellant No.2 would contend that they lived as legally wedded husband and wife pursuant to a properly and validly conducted marriage ceremony, the contention of respondent no.1 is that their cohabitation as husband and wife was only on the strength of Ext.X1 (Ext.A-1 is stated to be the photocopy of Ext.X1 "marriage agreement" dated, December 21, 1976). It is also beyond controversy that appellant No.1 is the progeny born in the relationship between appellant no.2 and respondent No.1. The specific case of appellant No.2 is that a customary marriage ceremony was performed in Sreekrishna temple at Guruvayoor on December, 21 1976 in the presence of their friends and colleagues. She further asserts that both of them started to live together as husband and wife in a rented house in Malaparamba Housing Colony from day one, which was never disputed by respondent No.2. 12. Appellant No.2 while she was examined as P.W.1 has spoken about the customary rites of marriage performed at the ceremony. She stated that the marriage ceremony took place at the eastern nada of the temple. Necessary arrangements for the marriage ceremony at Guruvayoor were made by respondent No.1, his relative Gopi and friend Sri.Vijaya Raghavan (P.W.3). The small ceremony was attended by P.W. his wife Santha, Arun George and his fiancee Chithra Subramaniam, Deepa Narayanan and another friend of respondent No.1 named Narayanan. About 8 to 10 people attended the ceremony. The "chit" for wedding was obtained earlier as arranged by respondent No.1. The small ceremony was attended by P.W. his wife Santha, Arun George and his fiancee Chithra Subramaniam, Deepa Narayanan and another friend of respondent No.1 named Narayanan. About 8 to 10 people attended the ceremony. The "chit" for wedding was obtained earlier as arranged by respondent No.1. The ceremony was held on the stage (mandapam) outside the temple where traditional lamp and vessel containing rice, etc. were arranged. She and respondent No.1 exchanged rings in the presence of and as instructed by the priest (Poojari). P.W.1 further stated that respondent No.1 tied thali around her neck and they exchanged garlands. Both of them went around the traditional lamp three times. She had been wearing the cloth (pudava) which respondent no.1 had purchased for her. 13. After the ceremony, both of them came down from the mandapam and went round the temple. After offering prayers they came back to Calicut to 'Kili Illam', house taken on rent by respondent no.1 at Malaparamba housing colony. P.W.1 asserted that they started to live together as husband and wife right from the day of their marriage. She further stated that the parents and near relatives of the two families did not participate in the marriage at Guruvayoor. However, about two weeks after the marriage, a wedding reception was held on January 16, 1977 in which the family members participated. When she was 8 months pregnant, she was taken to her parental home accompanied by her husband's sister. She further asserted that traditional functions like Seemantham, Valakappu, which are usually performed in Brahmin families during pregnancy were also held. According to P.W.1 the sister and brother in law of respondent no.1 and another near relative Sree Sankaranarayan and his uncle and aunt had also participated along with respondent No.1 in those ceremonies. She gave birth to appellant No.1 on March 20, 1982 at Rajasree Nursing Home, Calicut. The naming ceremony of the child was held at her residence. For that function also the parents of respondent No.1 had participated. She vehemently refuted the case of respondent No.1 that no marriage ceremony was held at Guruvayur, though both of them had lived together as husband and wife. The evidence of P.W.2 is not very material, since he had only produced Ext.X1 document as authorised by the Sub Registrar pursuant to the summons issued by the court. 14. She vehemently refuted the case of respondent No.1 that no marriage ceremony was held at Guruvayur, though both of them had lived together as husband and wife. The evidence of P.W.2 is not very material, since he had only produced Ext.X1 document as authorised by the Sub Registrar pursuant to the summons issued by the court. 14. P.W. deposed before the court that he was working in Gwaliyor Rayons as Assistant grade officer during 1976. He claimed that respondent No.1 was his friend during the period. He was introduced to respondent No.1 by Gopalakrishnan known as Aradhana Gopi who was his close friend. He had taken the initiative to conduct the marriage between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 as requested by Gopi. P.W. stated that apart from him, Gopi @Gopalakrishnan, Deepa, Arun George, Chithra Subramaniam and Narayanan had participated in the marriage held at Guruvayur on December 21, 1976. All of them had gone to Guruvayur in two cars belonging to him and respondent No.1. Arrangements for the marriage had been made in advance through a priest whom he knew. Muhurtham was at 10.30 a.m. The chit for the marriage was obtained in advance. The ceremony was held on the stage (mandapam) outside the temple. The priest came with the garlands. Traditional lamp and rice bowl were kept on the mandapam. Appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 exchanged rings. Respondent No.1 tied thali around the neck of appellant No.2. Both of them exchanged garlands. They took three rounds around the lamp. He also stated that appellant no.2 was wearing the pudava (cloth) purchased by respondent no.1. All of them came back to Calicut after taking meals. Appellant no.2 and respondent no.1 started to live together in 'Kili Illam', a rented house in Malaparamba Housing Colony from that day onwards. This witness also stated that on January 22, 1977 he had gone to Sub Registrar's office at Chevayoor and signed as a witness in Ext.X1 document along with Arun George. He saw appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 signing the document before the Sub Registrar. He denied the case of respondent No.1 that no customary marriage had taken place at Guruvayur. This witness further stated that the family members of appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 had participated in the reception held at the rented house before registration of Ext.X1 marriage agreement. He saw appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 signing the document before the Sub Registrar. He denied the case of respondent No.1 that no customary marriage had taken place at Guruvayur. This witness further stated that the family members of appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 had participated in the reception held at the rented house before registration of Ext.X1 marriage agreement. He further stated that he had also participated in some of the ceremonies held at the residence of appellant No.1 after the marriage. He also referred to Ext.A4 photo album, containing the photographs taken in connection with some of the ceremonies. 15. We will now deal with the evidence adduced by the respondents in the case. Rw.1 asserted in his evidence that he and appellant No.2 had never undergone any form of marriage ceremony at any point of time, much less the alleged customary ceremony at Guruvayur temple. According to him, he and appellant No.2 had decided to live together as husband and wife because of their mutual love for each other and also on the face of stiff resistance from their family members for a marriage alliance. They had executed an agreement in this regard on December 21, 1976. According to him he had treated appellant No.2 as his lawful wife. But their relationship got strained when appellant No.2 violated the conditions of the agreement and deserted him. He issued a notice to appellant No.2 intimating his decision to put an end to the contractual relationship. (Respondent No.1 further contended in his counter affidavit that the "agreement to live together as husband and wife was unknown to the personal law of the parties" and therefore appellant No.2 could never claim that she is his legally wedded wife.) In his evidence before the Court he reiterated whatever he had stated in his counter statement. He further contended that the claim of the appellants was barred by limitation and therefore they were not entitled to get any reliefs in the petition. 16. In his cross examination he admitted that he and appellant No.2 had lived together as husband and wife and appellant No.1 was born in the said relationship. He further admitted that a wedding reception was held at Malapparamba Housing Colony. According to him this reception was held either on 7th or 8th of February 1977. 16. In his cross examination he admitted that he and appellant No.2 had lived together as husband and wife and appellant No.1 was born in the said relationship. He further admitted that a wedding reception was held at Malapparamba Housing Colony. According to him this reception was held either on 7th or 8th of February 1977. When he was confronted with certain photographs in the album (Ext.A4 (series)) taken in connection with some ceremonies allegedly conducted at the residence of the appellants, he admitted that he was also present at some functions. He also admitted that in the photographs, which were apparently taken in connection with some ceremony held in connection with the birth of the child, his parents as well as the parents of appellant No.2 were also seen. But he could not say in connection with which ceremony the said photographs were taken. 17. Rw.1 who was examined on the side of the respondents stated that he was a college mate of appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 in the Malabar Christian College. He stated that he was a witness to Ext.X1 registered agreement executed between appellant No.2 and respondent No.1. He admitted that P.W.3 was also a witness to the agreement. But according to this witness, he met P.W.3 only on that day. He denied the suggestion that he had participated in the marriage ceremony at Guruvayur temple on December 21, 1976. He had been living in Canada since 1991. He further stated that he had signed as a witness in Ext.X1 after understanding that it was an agreement evidencing marriage between the two and that they had decided to live together as husband and wife. He further admitted that all the people knew that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 were living as husband and wife. He also admitted that he could be seen in one of the photographs in the album along with appellant No.2, respondent No.1, Deepa, Narayanan, Gopi, Vijayaraghavan (P.W.3) etc. He could not remember whether he had attended any function arranged at the house of appellant No.2 in connection with the birth of the child. 18. A careful analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties will reveal that the whole world around them knew that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 had been living as husband and wife since 1976 and that appellant No.1 was born in the said relationship. 18. A careful analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties will reveal that the whole world around them knew that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 had been living as husband and wife since 1976 and that appellant No.1 was born in the said relationship. While respondent No.1 would contend that there was no formal customary marriage in the eye of law, the specific case of appellant No.2 is that they had undergone a marriage ceremony as per customary rites in Guruvayur temple on December 21, 1976 in the presence of their close friends. 19. Having carefully perused the testimonies of P.W.1 (appellant No.2) and P.W.3, we do not find any reason to discard their evidence. It must be remembered that these two witnesses were being examined in the Court after a lapse of about 27 years. But still, they spoke about the ceremony in a convincing manner. In our view, there is a ring of truth in the evidence of these two witnesses. It may be true that there are some very minor discrepancies. But on the whole there is nothing on record to indicate that these witnesses were speaking any falsehood. 20. In this context we may have to take note of the fact that respondent No.1 had admitted that they had started to live together as husband and wife on the strength of Ext.X1 marriage agreement. Respondent No.1 admitted that the above agreement was executed on December 21, 1976 with a definite understanding by both of them to live as husband and wife, though it was got registered only on January 22, 1977. Respondent No.1 had further admitted that a wedding reception was held shortly after the marriage. While the case of appellant No.2 was that the reception was held on January 16, 1977, respondent No.2 stated that it might have been held on 7th or 8th of February 1977. Anyhow in the counter affidavit respondent No.2 candidly admitted that Ext.X1 agreement was executed on December 21, 1976. But the said agreement is seen to have been registered at the Sub Registry Office only on January 22, 1977. But still the fact remains that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 started to live together some time during December 1976-January 1977. If this admitted position is kept in view, we are inclined to accept the case of appellant No.2 as more probable and believable. But still the fact remains that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 started to live together some time during December 1976-January 1977. If this admitted position is kept in view, we are inclined to accept the case of appellant No.2 as more probable and believable. As mentioned earlier, we do not find any ambiguity or improbability in the case of appellant No.2 (P.W.1) and P.W.3. All the attendant circumstances, especially the conduct of the parties clearly indicate that appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 had undergone a marriage ceremony at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur on December 21, 1976. 21. It may be true that the two families of the couple could not initially agree to a marriage alliance, for reasons best known to them. Both families were in affluent circumstances, though one belonged to Brahmin community, and the other to Nair community. However, as it turned out, the two families had reconciled later especially after appellant No.2 conceived her child. The evidence on record will show that some customary ceremonies were held at the residence of appellant No.2 during her pregnancy. The photographs bear testimony of this. Thereafter when the child was born, some other customary functions were also held. In all these functions the parents of the couple had participated as could be seen from the photographs in the album produced before the court. Significantly respondent No.2 had candidly admitted this in his evidence. Therefore the fact that the two families had come together and participated in some customary ceremonies will definitely show that they had also accepted that there was a formal customary marriage between appellant No.2 and respondent No. 1. It cannot be assumed that such customary ceremonies as indicated above would have been held by the two orthodox families, albeit of different communities, in the absence of customary marriage between their children. 22. However it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the attempt of the appellants is only to malign the respondents and wreak vengeance on them. Appellant No.2 was all along aware that no formal marriage ceremony was held though she had lived with respondent No.1 as his wife for some time. She might have defied her family because of the exuberance of her youth and also for the reason that she was in love with respondent No.1. Appellant No.2 was all along aware that no formal marriage ceremony was held though she had lived with respondent No.1 as his wife for some time. She might have defied her family because of the exuberance of her youth and also for the reason that she was in love with respondent No.1. It is further contended that if in fact a marriage ceremony had been held at Guruvayur temple, there was no necessity for executing Ext.A-1 agreement. Learned senior counsel points out that the alleged marriage between appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 was never registered under the Hindu Marriage Act or under any other statute. It is contended that if in fact a marriage ceremony was held at Guruvayur, it would have definitely been mentioned in Ext.A-1 and in any event a photograph would have been taken. The above contentions may appear to be formidable at first blush. It may be true that there is no mention about a marriage ceremony in Ext.X1 agreement. But the specific case of appellant No.2 is that Ext.X1 agreement was executed as desired by respondent No.1 on December 21, 1976 itself, though it was got registered later. Therefore it is possible that the parties did not think it necessary to get the marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage Act at that time, especially since Ext.X1 was got registered after the marriage. In any view of the matter, the absence of any reference to the marriage in Ext.A-1 will not in any way nullify the oral testimony of P.W.s.1 and. Absence of a photograph is also insignificant, since the entire ceremony was arranged in a secretive manner. 23. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is as regards the delay in filing the petition before the Family Court. It is true that the appellants instituted the Original Petition before the Family Court only in the year 2001. But it has to be noticed that appellant No.1 was born in March 1982 and going by the date of his attainment of majority it cannot be said that the petition was barred by limitation. His primary prayer was for grant of a declaration that he was the legitimate son of respondent No.1 in his legally wedded wife (appellant No.2). But it has to be noticed that appellant No.1 was born in March 1982 and going by the date of his attainment of majority it cannot be said that the petition was barred by limitation. His primary prayer was for grant of a declaration that he was the legitimate son of respondent No.1 in his legally wedded wife (appellant No.2). Learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in R.P. Agrawal v. Urmila Devi (1982 All.L.J. 260). In that decision a learned single Judge held that a suit to declare a marriage invalid would be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and not by residuary Article 11. We have carefully perused the above judgment. The husband/plaintiff had instituted the suit for a declaration that respondent was not his wife and none of the children born in her were begotten by him. In 1965 respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance, which was awarded in favour of the wife and children in 1965 itself. Later, in 1973 an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount was also filed. Plaintiff instituted the suit in November 1973. The trial court held that there was no marriage but the, while considering the plea of limitation, held that the suit was barred by limitation, applying Article 58. The above view was upheld by the High Court in the reported judgment. 24. In the case on hand, it may be noticed that the primary relief sought by the appellants before the trial court is for a declaration that appellant No.1 is the son born to respondent No.1 in his legal wedlock with appellant No.2. It cannot be said that the petition filed by appellant No.1 would in any way be barred by limitation, since admittedly he had instituted the petition within years from the date of his attaining majority. (He had become major in the year 2000 and the petition has been filed in 2001). Therefore the contention raised by the respondents that the Original Petition filed by the appellants before the Family Court is barred by limitation cannot be sustained at all. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 had never questioned the paternity of appellant No.1. In other words, he had admitted that appellant No.1 was born "in his relationship" with appellant No.2. Therefore the contention raised by the respondents that the Original Petition filed by the appellants before the Family Court is barred by limitation cannot be sustained at all. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 had never questioned the paternity of appellant No.1. In other words, he had admitted that appellant No.1 was born "in his relationship" with appellant No.2. But the evidence on record has clearly established that a legal marriage ceremony was held at Sree Krishna Temple in Guruvayur as contended by appellant No.2. The contention raised by respondent No.1 that he had lived or cohabited with appellant No.2 as husband and wife outside a marital relationship and that too only on the strength of Ext.X1 agreement has been totally disproved by the evidence available on record. 25. In Badri Prasad v. Dy.Director, Consolidation (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1557) the factum of marriage between a man and a woman who lived as husband and wife for around 50 years was challenged. The Supreme Court observed thus: "A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, the heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy." In Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors. ((2004) SCC 1993), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held, relying on Sastry Velaider v. Sembecutty ((1881) 6 AC 364 : (1881-85) All E R Rep Ext 1804 (PC) and De Thoren v. Attorney General (1876) 1 AC 686 (HL) and Piers v. Piers (1849) 2 HL Case 1 : (1843 -60) All England Reporter Rep 159, that where a man and a woman have been proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, until contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Where a marriage is accepted as valid by relations, friends and others for a long time, it cannot be declared as invalid. The above consistent view has been followed in a catena of decisions rendered by various High Courts also. 26. Where a marriage is accepted as valid by relations, friends and others for a long time, it cannot be declared as invalid. The above consistent view has been followed in a catena of decisions rendered by various High Courts also. 26. However it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the trial court which had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses while recording evidence, had found the testimony of P.W. unreliable. Learned counsel contends that this Court sitting in appeal must be wary of accepting the testimony of the said witness leave alone the interested version given by appellant No.2(P.W.1). In this context our attention has been drawn to the following observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in T.D. Gopalan v. Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Madras (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1716). "If the trial court has given cogent and detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of a witness, the in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial court." It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the so called witness who allegedly attended the marriage ceremony at Guruvayur was a close friend of appellant No.2 and therefore no great sanctity or importance can be attached to his testimony. 27. In response to the above contention the decision reported in Shantinath Ramu Danole v. Jambu Ramu Danole ( 1996 (11) SCC 88 ) has been pressed into service by the learned counsel who appears for the appellants. In this decision the apex Court held that testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they were relatives or friends. Marriages are attended only by relatives and friends. The evidence of such relatives and friends cannot be thrown out only because they happen to be relatives and friends, unless their testimony suffers from some inherent infirmity. Learned counsel submits that such a flaw or defect cannot be found in the evidence of this witness (P.W.3). The court below refused to place any reliance on the oral testimony of P.W.1 as regards the customary marriage for the reason that she had not specifically pleaded in the Original Petition what were the customary rites and ceremonies that were undergone. The court below refused to place any reliance on the oral testimony of P.W.1 as regards the customary marriage for the reason that she had not specifically pleaded in the Original Petition what were the customary rites and ceremonies that were undergone. But it has to be noticed that P.W.1 had unambiguously pleaded that the marriage was "solemnised as per the rites and custom of the Hindu community in the presence of friends and colleagues of the couple". 28. The court below found fault with appellant No.2 (P.W.1) for her failure to summon the relevant registers from the temple. It has to be remembered that the alleged marriage took place in the year 1976. She had candidly admitted that she was not aware whether or not the relevant register would be available in the temple. It is common knowledge that in Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayur thousands of marriages take place every year and if appellant No.2 did not think of taking any steps to summon the relevant registers and that too which were about a quarter century old, we are afraid no blame can be put on her. Therefore the court below was not justified in drawing an adverse inference in order to hold that no customary marriage as alleged by appellant No.2 had taken place. 29. While discussing the evidence of P.W.3, the court below observed that this witness had no idea about the "back history" of respondent No.1. P.W.3 categorically stated before court that he had gone to the temple with respondent No.1 prior to the marriage, to make necessary arrangements. The court below observed that P.W.. being older in age to appellant No.2 and respondent No.1, could not have been their classmate. But P.W.3 stated that he had met respondent No.1 through his close friend Gopi who is a relative of respondent No.1. The court below did not seem to have been impressed with the above explanation offered by P.W... The involvement of P.W. at the marriage ceremony was not believed. P.W.. had specifically stated that the marriage party had gone to Guruvayur in two cars. Respondent No.1 in his evidence had admitted that this P.W.3 was a witness to Ext.X1 agreement. The court below did not seem to have been impressed with the above explanation offered by P.W... The involvement of P.W. at the marriage ceremony was not believed. P.W.. had specifically stated that the marriage party had gone to Guruvayur in two cars. Respondent No.1 in his evidence had admitted that this P.W.3 was a witness to Ext.X1 agreement. Further Rw.2 also admitted in his evidence that P.W.3 was present at the time of registration of Ext.X1 document and that he had also attended the Reception arranged a few days after the registration of the marriage. Having carefully perused the reasons stated by the court below for not accepting the oral testimonies of P.W.s.1 and , we have no hesitation to hold that their evidence ought to have been given due weight and credence. These witnesses had specifically referred to the customary rites and ceremonies undergone for the marriage which stood un-controverted. 30. We have referred to the above aspects only to indicate that the reasons given by the court below not to give any credence to the oral testimonies of P.W.s.1 and do not appear to be justifiable at all. In our view, the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and do not suffer from any infirmity or lack of credibility. Therefore, accepting the un-controverted testimonies given by P.W.s 1 and , it is held that the marriage between appellant No.2 and respondent No.1 was held at Sree Krishna temple in Guruvayur on December 21, 1976 as per customary rites and ceremonies. We have already referred to the other pieces of evidence available on record which in our view will substantiate and establish the case of the appellants. The very fact that the parents of the couple had participated in various ceremonies held in connection with the birth of the child (appellant No.1) will go a long way to show that they had recognised and accepted the legal status of their children as husband and wife. It is hard to believe that the parents of the couple, who admittedly hail from very orthodox and respected families, would have agreed to participate in those religious ceremonies if their children had not undergone a customary marriage. It may be true that appellant No.2 had kept quiet after receipt of the letter sent by respondent No.1 alleging that there was no proper marriage between him and her. It may be true that appellant No.2 had kept quiet after receipt of the letter sent by respondent No.1 alleging that there was no proper marriage between him and her. Appellant No.2 had given reasons why she did not choose to go to court at that stage. As rightly pointed out by appellant No.2, the legal implications arising from the above issue dawned on her when her son wanted to get his legal status as the legitimate son of respondent No.1 established. 31. For the reasons stated by us in the earlier part of this judgment, we have no hesitation to hold that the court below was not justified in rejecting the prayer made by appellant No.1. In our view, the petition is liable to be allowed. We do so. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the prayer for maintenance is rejected, especially in the absence of any evidence that there was any wilful neglect on the part of respondent No.1 in giving maintenance to appellant No.1. Admittedly appellant No.1 had never bothered to claim any maintenance from respondent No.1 prior to the institution of the petition. 32. A memo has been filed by learned counsel for the appellant reporting the death of respondent No.1 on May 13, 2010 after conclusion of the hearing of the appeal. The above memo is taken on record. 33. The appeal stands allowed. However there will be no order as to costs.