1964 (3) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by someone other than the petitioner.
2. Whether the petitioner was ignorant of the respondent's pregnancy at the time of marriage.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the marriage declared null and void.
4. Whether the High Court was right in remitting the two issues for a finding to the trial court.
5. What is the standard of proof required for the satisfaction of the court before it can pass a decree in these proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by someone other than the petitioner:
The trial court found that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by someone other than the petitioner. The High Court, however, held that the petitioner had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was pregnant by someone else at the time of marriage. The High Court remitted the issue for further evidence, but eventually, it was found that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the respondent was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage.

2. Whether the petitioner was ignorant of the respondent's pregnancy at the time of marriage:
Both the trial court and the High Court agreed that the petitioner was ignorant of the respondent's pregnancy at the time of marriage. The petitioner claimed that he discovered the respondent's pregnancy only after learning about the birth of the child on August 27, 1947.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the marriage declared null and void:
The trial court annulled the marriage based on its findings. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court ultimately annulled the marriage, concluding that the child born to the respondent on August 27, 1947, was practically a mature child and could not have been conceived on or after March 10, 1947.

4. Whether the High Court was right in remitting the two issues for a finding to the trial court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in remitting the second issue for a finding as it was necessary for the determination of the case. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court might well have decided the case on the basis of the evidence originally recorded without remitting the first issue to the trial court.

5. What is the standard of proof required for the satisfaction of the court before it can pass a decree in these proceedings:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the evidence must be clear and satisfactory beyond the mere balance of probabilities and conclusive in the sense that it will satisfy the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the High Court, and annulled the marriage between the parties by a decree of nullity. The Court directed the parties to bear their own costs throughout. The Supreme Court concluded that the child born to the respondent could not have been conceived on or after March 10, 1947, and therefore, the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by someone other than the petitioner.

← Previous Next →