Citation
rsraghukumar
(Querist) 22 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
sir good morning. sir i lost one judgment copy of Supreme Court of India. that judgment is about "heavy burden lies on the person who dines the marriage". It is 2010 judgment. If that judgment is available with you sir, please tell the citation address. its very urgent sir.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 22 April 2012
Wait a minute,
Is not it the judgment, in which the SC has held long cohabitation gives presumption of a valid marriage, and heavy burden lies on the person who denies the marriage.
Because otherwise every lady would say she is married to rich and famous and they would be running to deny the same.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 22 April 2012
try finding it on www.indiankanoon.org
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 22 April 2012
It is called the ; onus of proof'.
Burden of proof is always there in every case , it is the onus which shifts from a party to another.
If a person alleges marriage then it is the cohabitation would presume the relationship to be out of marriage.
Then naturally the onus of disproving it would shift to the person who denies it.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 22 April 2012
the Supreme Court in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 1557 has reiterated that where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife, there would be presumption in favour of wedlock. The presumption was, however, rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deny the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. Law, according to the Supreme Court leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Tulsa and others v. Durghatiya and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1193, the said Court has maintained the same view by relying upon all the above-mentioned decisions. Therefore, in this case heavy burden lay upon the original defendant to show that there was no marriage at all. Simply by saying that no such marriage had taken place, such heavy burden cannot be discharged. In this case, the mother and the brother of the husband have supported the wife and apart from those person three other witnesses have deposed in support of the plaint case and we find no reason to discard their evidence. There is no cogent material on record to disbelieve the testimony of those persons particularly when two of them are mother and the brother of the husband. In this case, apart from the husband, no other person has come forward to support the husband and we find no reason to believe his testimony that the plaintiff was his concubine when it is established from the materials on record that the father of the plaintiff bore his educational expenditure. It is absurd to suggest that the father of a concubine would bear the educational expenditure of the person so that his daughter may live as a concubine of that person when admittedly at that point of time, the defendant was not married to any other person. It is admitted that the parties lived together from the year 1959 till 1971 and three children were born to them. The defendant, as it appears from record, is an ungrateful son-in-law and at the same time, a treacherous and libidinous husband.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 22 April 2012
Mr. Sethi is right.to know more judgments visit the site advised by Mr.Shonee Kapoor.
