Eye witness
rsraghukumar
(Querist) 11 June 2012
This query is : Resolved
sir please clarify the following few lines relating to establishment of marriage. i got these lines from SC judgment:
"When the fact of celebration of marriage is established it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage have been gone through."
sir my doubts from the above lines are:
a)Sir what is the meaning of "absence of evidence" .(it means eye witness or dircet witness or documentary evidence or any other thing it conveys sir. i am unable to understand the meaning)
b)what exactly means establishment of marriage.
please sir awaiting for the reply.
With regards:
Victim after this marriage.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 11 June 2012
there is no complexity in the words Mr. Kumar
Evidence can be of any form....the court says.
When the fact of celebration of marriage is ESTABLISHED i.e. proved or otherwise admitted....then the court has presumed that the rites and ceremonies have also been performed unless evidence to the contrary is given.
court finds there is no evidence to prove that the marriage was never solemnized.
court has used simplest possible expressions nothing technical in it.
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 12 June 2012
1. There is a problem with the judgment where it has been held as you mentioned.
2, For instance, S.7(1) of HM Act says: "A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordnce with customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto."
3. The judgment you quoted says "if the fact of celebration of marriage is established". As per S.7 "celebration" or solemnization takes place if the customary rites and rituals are gone through.S. 7(2) refers to Saptapadi and says the marriage "becomes complete" when the seventh step is taken".
4.Then what is meant by "fact of celebration of marriage" in the judgment when it can be celebrated only by rites and rituals? It amounts to begging the question.
5. "Evidence to the contrary" would include, for instance, the statement of the parties that they are in a live-in relationship only.
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 12 June 2012
1. There is no problem with the words, don't read it with a view to read in a conflict - it's a court's judgment passed by learned people.
2. Now if X and Y's marriage is in issue before a court - witnesses depose that they attended their marriage, now 'celebration is proved' and that in itsself would raise the presumption that all peculiar rites and ceremonies were performed (this is because such evidence would hardly be forthcoming - if you've attended a wedding you'd know).
3. Evidence to the contrary means where a witnesses says for eg : Marriage was solemnised - but there were no pheres/saptapadi etc.
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 12 June 2012
1. There is no problem with the words, don't read it with a view to read in a conflict - it's a court's judgment passed by learned people.
2. Now if X and Y's marriage is in issue before a court - witnesses depose that they attended their marriage, now 'celebration is proved' and that in itsself would raise the presumption that all peculiar rites and ceremonies were performed (this is because such evidence would hardly be forthcoming - if you've attended a wedding you'd know).
3. Evidence to the contrary means where a witnesses says for eg : Marriage was solemnised - but there were no pheres/saptapadi etc.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 12 June 2012
Good answer by Bharat.
It means one is not to prove that each and every ceremony taken place before his eyes. It is sufficient to show that he attended marriage. All the ceremonies shall be presumed.
But when it is shown that at 11 o clock night, there was a quarrel between the both parties then The court may require a witness who has seen the seven steps or other ritual deemed necessary.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 13 June 2012
No more advice or suggestion than the above.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 19 June 2012
The things have been clarified in detail.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
