Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)K. Munuswami Gounder And Anr. vs M. Govindaraju And Ors. on 14 February, 1995
In K. MUNUSWAMI GOUNDER AND ANOTHER VS. M. GOVINDARAJU
AND 4 OTHERS (1995-1 LW 487) it has been held that presumption of marriage
under Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn when facts show that no
marriage could have taken place between the man and the woman by rebuttal
evidence.
Seerangamal (Died) And Ors. vs E.B. Venkatsubramanian And Ors. on 29 November, 1985
In SEERANGAMMAL (DIED) AND OTHERS VS. E.B.
VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & OTHERS (100 LW 58) a Division Bench of this Court held
that,
"presumption of marriage from long cohabitation and evidence from materials
like school records, letters, voters' list, money order coupons, etc. would
be sufficient to show that a woman was treated by a man as his wife."
Surjet Kaur vs Garja Singh (Mohan,J.) on 27 October, 1993
In SURJIT KAUR VS. GARJA SINGH AND OTHERS (AIR 1994 SC
135 = 19 94-1 LW 38) the Supreme court held that in the absence of proof,
pleading of customary marriage and living together as husband and wife by
itself, would not confer the status of husband and wife. In that case, the
wife was in the habit of changing husbands frequently. Merely because they
lived as husband and wife, the Supreme Court held that the status of wife was
not conferred on the person claiming to have married.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
V. Manakkan And Five Others vs Veera Perumal on 18 April, 1998
2. V. MANAKKAN AND FIVE OTHERS VS. VEERA PERUMAL (1998-2 CTC 157)
Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors on 1 August, 1978
In BADRI PRASAD VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND
OTHERS (1978-3 SCC 527) a three Judges of the Supreme Court held that from a
man and a woman living together for 50 years a strong presumption of marriage
between them arises under Sections 114 and 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act and
the burden was very heavy on anyone seeking to rebut such presumption. It was
also held that if men and women who live as husband and wife in society are
compelled to prove, half a century later,by eyewitness evidence that they were
validly married, a few will succeed.