1978 JTR(SC) 193
1978 AIR(SC) 1557 ; 1978 AllLJ 1010 ; 1978 4 AllLR 681 ; 1979 1 APLJ 5 ; 1978 HinduLR 697 ; 1978 ILR(Kar) 1435 ; 1979 RD 89 ; 1978 3 SCC 527 ; 1979 1 SCR 1 ; 1978 UJ 545 ; 1978 KLT(Online)(SC) 1082 ; 1978 KLT(Online) 1082 ; 1978 KHC 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.
Badri Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation and others – Respondent
Special Leave Petn. (Civil) Nos. 1731 and 927 of 1978
Decided On : 01-08-1978
Act Referred :EVIDENCE ACT : S.102, S.101, S.103, S.114
Constitution of India, 1950 - Challenge to factum of marriage between two - Burden lies on him who seeks to deprive relationship of legal origin - For around years man and woman as facts in this case unfold lived as husband and wife - An adventurist challenge to factum of marriage between two by petitioner in this special leave petition has been negatived by the High Court - A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where partners have lived together for long spell as husband and wife - Although the presumption is rebuttable heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive relationship of legal origin – Held, Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy - This view contention for petitioner that long after alleged marriage evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining priest or other witnesses deserves no consideration - If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove half century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validily married few will succeed - Contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation - Special leave petitions are dismissed – Petition dismissed
Constitution of India, 1950 - Challenge to factum of marriage between two - Burden lies on him who seeks to deprive relationship of legal origin - For around years man and woman as facts in this case unfold lived as husband and wife - An adventurist challenge to factum of marriage between two by petitioner in this special leave petition has been negatived by the High Court - A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where partners have lived together for long spell as husband and wife - Although the presumption is rebuttable heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive relationship of legal origin – Held, Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy - This view contention for petitioner that long after alleged marriage evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining priest or other witnesses deserves no consideration - If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove half century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validily married few will succeed - Contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation - Special leave petitions are dismissed – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
ORDER :— For around 50 years, a man and a woman, as the facts in this case unfold, lived as husband and wife. An adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage between the two, by the petitioner in this special leave petition, has been negatived by the High Court. 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, a 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 this view, the contention of Shri Garg, for the petitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses, deserves no consideration. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validily married, few will succeed. The contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Special leave petitions dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1978 SC 1557