Sarathchandra vs Attorney-General – sllr 2004 volume 3 page 041

In the case between Sarathchandra (Plaintiff) and the Attorney-General (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether evidence of cohabitation by “habit and repute” is sufficient to infer a marriage for the purposes of mounting a marital defence in a rape charge, and whether the framing of the charge complied with mandatory legal requirements or misled the accused. The court held that the available evidence did not establish a marriage by habit and repute, and the formulation of the charge did not mislead the accused or violate procedural requirements. This holding reaffirmed the principle that a recognised marriage, for legal purposes, requires clear evidence of ceremonies or widespread societal acknowledgment, not merely an intention to marry or informal cohabitation. The decision