ORDER : Rajani Dubey, J 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.24A/2008, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintif and declared her as legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and S. Chandrashekhar Rao, S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao as children born out of their wedlock. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that S. Surya Rao was working as Safety Officer in Indian Railway who superannuated on 30.11.2006 and respondent No.1/plaintif superannuated in the year 2006 as Teacher from Govt. Aadim Jaati Kanya Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay. 3. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1/plaintif had filed a declaratory suit on the ground that her marriage was solemnized with S. Surya Rao in the year 1972 according to Hindu Rites, Rituals and Customs and out of their wedlock son S. Chandrashekhar Rao, daughter S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao were born. Her name also finds place in voter list and voter ID card as wife of S. Surya Rao and as such she is entitled to receive the amount deposited with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. During service period of late S. Surya Rao, he was residing at Railway Quarter in Bilaspur and respondent No.1/plaintif was living with her children at Manendragarh. After retirement, S. Surya Rao started residing with respondent No.1/plaintif at Chanwaridand, District Manendragarh. On 18.11.2007, S. Surya Rao left for heavenly abode at Manendragarh and after his death, appellant/defendant Nanki Bai declared herself to be wife of late S. Surya Rao and demanded all dues, savings and pension of late S. Surya Rao from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. 4. Defendant/appellant herein denied all allegations in her written statement and contended that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is a believer of Christianity and late S. Surya Rao was a Hindu. Appellant is a legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and out of their wedlock one daughter Likita was born out. She was residing with S. Surya Rao at Bilaspur, and after retirement at Manendragarh. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 and his son, after the death of S. Surya Rao, encroached upon the house of late S. Surya Rao, report of which was filed by her at Police Station as also before Divisional Magistrate. 5. She was residing with S. Surya Rao at Bilaspur, and after retirement at Manendragarh. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 and his son, after the death of S. Surya Rao, encroached upon the house of late S. Surya Rao, report of which was filed by her at Police Station as also before Divisional Magistrate. 5. Respondent No. 2 and 4 denied the plaint averments & respondent No.3 did not file any written statement before the Court below. Respondent No.5 supported the claim of defendant No.1/appellant herein. 6. The learned trial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and declared her as legally wedded wife of late S. Surya Rao and son S. Chandrashekhar Rao, daughter S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao as children born out of their wedlock. Hence, this appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the law as late S. Surya Rao is having name of appellant and her daughter in his service record. Respondent No.1 is admittedly Christian and her children married under Christianity. He further submits that late S. Surya Rao was Hindu by religion and respondent No.1 being Teacher has never mentioned about her husband in her service record, which clearly shows that she is not a legally wedded wife of S. Surya Rao. He also submits that respondent No.1 instituted a case for grant of succession certificate, which was dismissed and, therefore, she has chosen not to implead SECR in said suit for declaration, which itself is an indicative of the fact that she wanted to suppress material facts. It is next submitted that from service record and deposition of plaintif's witnesses it is evident that the appellant was duly recorded as wife and beneficiary of late S. Surya Rao. Therefore, the impugned order being contrary to the fact situation of the case, is liable to be set aside. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Mishra V. Miss Eveline Jobe reported in 1992 SCC OnLine MP 161, decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of K Devabalan and Ors. V. M. Vijaykumari and Ors. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Mishra V. Miss Eveline Jobe reported in 1992 SCC OnLine MP 161, decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of K Devabalan and Ors. V. M. Vijaykumari and Ors. reported in AIR 1991 Ker 175 and decision of High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in the matter of E. Natarajan V. The State and Ors. reported in 2016 (2) MLJ(Cri)27. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below and submits that the impugned order being in accordance with law does not require any interference by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submits that they will abide by the order passed by this Court. 10. Respondent No.3 and 5 did not appear despite service of notice. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. The main objection of learned counsel for the appellant is that as respondent No.1 is a Christian and late S. Surya Rao is Hindu by religion, therefore, in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the marriage of respondent No.1 with late S. Surya Rao is not a valid one. 13. In the instant case, plaintiff/respondent No.1, in para 5 of her cross-examination has stated as under:- ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd ,l0 lw;kZjko oYn Lo0 ,l0 Vh0oh0 VUuk nf{k.k Hkkjrh; rsyxq FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,l0 lw;kZjko fgUnw Fks vkSj fgUnw /keZ dks ekurs FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa ewy #i ls bZlkbZ /kekZoyach gwW A ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs firk Vh0,e0 nkl ewy #i ls is.Mªk ds ikl T;ksfriqj ds jgus okys FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjk iwjk ifjokj bZlkbZ/keZ dks ekuus okyk gSA^^ 14. It is written in para 1 of the plaint that plaintiff's marriage with late S. Surya Rao was solemnized 36 years ago in July 1972 according Hindu rituals, and one son namely S. Chandrashekhar Rao and daughter S. Shivani Rao and S. Sunita Rao were born out of their wedlock and that she lived with her husband S. Surya Rao till his last breath. 15. 15. Before the learned trial Court, marriage ritual was disputed by the appellant but it is clear from evidence and all the documents that though their religion are different but respondent No.1 -Smt. Sudha Das and S. Surya Rao had been residing together since 1972 to 2000 as husband and wife and it is also proved by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that the last ritual of late S. Surya Rao was performed by his son S. Chandrashekhar Rao, which is evident from photographs of last ritual of late S. Surya Rao (Ex.P/6 to P/10). The appellant/defendant admitted in para 12 of her cross-examination that the person seen in photographs (Ex.P/6 to P/8) is late S. Surya Rao and the house seen in photograph (Ex.P/9 and P/10) is of late S. Surya Rao and she does not know the name of other persons present in the Court. That apart, there is Insurance Police of late S. Surya Rao on record (Ex.P/7-A) which shows commencement date of it as 20.03.1974 and maturity date as 20.03.1994. In the nominee clause of the policy, name of Smt. Sudha Rao (w) Sri Shanthati Surya Rao is mentioned, which clearly shows that plaintiff/respondent No.1-Smt. Sudha Das first came in the life of late S. Surya Rao. Appellant herein has stated herself in para 1 of her statement that her marriage with late S. Surya Rao was solemnized on 29.07.2000 and S. Latika is their daughter born on 01.08.2002 out of their wedlock. S. Chandrashekhar Rao (PW/3) is aged about 42 years and he has filed his mark list (Ex.P/1) which shows father name as S. Surya Rao. Thus, it is clear from all the documents that respondent No.1 and late S. Surya Rao were living together for long spell. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tulsa and Others V. Durghatiya and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 520 has held in para 11, which reads thus:- “11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case.” 17. In this case, documents of respondent No.1 clearly reflect that Smt. Sudha Das and late S. Surya Rao were living together since 1972 till last breath of S. Surya Rao and appellant's document shows that she was living with late S. Surya Rao since 2000. 18. Where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife there would be presumption in favour of wedlock. The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. In the case in hand, appellant herein has not produced any document to establish that no marriage was took place between respondent No.1 and late S. Surya Rao. 19. The Court below, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, recorded its finding that plaintiff/respondent No.1 Smt. Sudha Das is married wife of late S. Surya Rao and S. Chandrashekhar, S. Sunita Rao and S. Shivani Rao are children born out of their wedlock. This finding of the Court below, in the opinion of this Court, is based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence produced before it and in accordance with the settled principle of law. 20. As noted above, the continuous living together of late S. Surya Rao and respondent No.1-Smt. Sudha Das herein has been well established. 21. Keeping all these facts, the impugned judgment under no circumstances can be held either perverse or contrary to the pleading or contrary to the evidence which has come on record. We do not find any strong case made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned judgment passed by the Court below. 22. 21. Keeping all these facts, the impugned judgment under no circumstances can be held either perverse or contrary to the pleading or contrary to the evidence which has come on record. We do not find any strong case made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned judgment passed by the Court below. 22. In view of the same, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost(s). 23. Let decree be drawn accordingly.