22 April 2012
sir as you all said that even one day when a man and wife lived to gether it comes under cohabitation, then i got a doubt where i saw in one of the SC judgments it is written as follows sir: "where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife there would be presumption in favour of wedlock . The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place".
Sir from the above lines it is stated by SC that Long Spell. Then SC is saying that if man and wife is living together for long spell then only presumption arises that marriage has taken place.
in my case the girl stayed with first husband nearly 3 months. then above SC judgment is suitable for me. can i file in my present case.
Sir moreover the girl is also denying the first marriage in the court. she has also avoided to enter into witness box. but she is denying inthe counter filed by her.
will the above said SC judgment is suitable for me to prove my case?
22 April 2012
I think you have misunderstood the SC judgment. The crust of the judgment is that if either of the parties is denying performing the marriage with the contesting party then their act and conduct of residing together for a considerable period shall be seen and it may safely be concluded that both are husband and wife however this presumption is rebuttable by the person who denies it.
In your given matter, the girl may be denying performing her first marriage but you shall to establish beyond any doubt with overwhelming evidence that she was residing for a considerable period with such and such person as of husband and wife and local presumption was also like that. If she denies in that event, she has to rebut it otherwise.
So the citation can be helpful to you only in case you establish first condition as told above.