IMPORTANT POINT
In maintenance proceedings, the burden of proof regarding financial status lies with the respondent when such information is within their exclusive knowledge, as per Section 109 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. In adversarial litigative processes, the general rule is that the burden of proof resides on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. However, Section 109 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) serves as an exception to this general rule by shifting the burden of proof to the party who has exclusive knowledge of the fact in question.

2. Incontestably, only a person who is in possession of a special fact or knowledge can disseminate it. To ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act makes a party in possession of such knowledge accountable. Exclusive knowledge of certain facts casts responsibility to disclose them; it places the burden on the party who is in a better position to produce the germane evidence. If the party with special knowledge fails to provide sufficient evidence, the court may draw an adverse inference against them.

3. To paraphrase, Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, establishes principles concerning the burden of proof in cases where a fact lies within the special knowledge of an individual; it stipulates that when any fact is particularly within the knowledge of one party, the responsibility to prove that fact rests with that party.

4. The afore have specific bearing in this case. The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thodupuzha, in O.P.No. 410/2019.

5. The aforementioned Original Petition was filed by the appellant seeking a decree of maintenance and for the expenses for her marriage in future from her father -the respondent herein; but which has now been dismissed by the learned Family Court, primarily finding that she has not been able to establish the financial status and fiscal condition of the latter.

6. Smt.Adorn Anna Martin – learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Family court has erroneously and unjustifiably placed the entire onus of proof on her client to establish the financial status of her father – the respondent herein, when this was virtually an impossibility for her. She argued that, when her client made a specific assertion that the respondent – her father, had neither maintained her, or her siblings; nor has he made any provision for her marriage expenses in future, particularly when he had the means to do so, being a person engaged in Real Estate Business and Financing -the learned Trial Court could not have dismissed her Original Petition, merely saying that she has been “unable to establish the financial status of the respondent” (sic).

7. Smt.Adorn Anna Martin, thereafter, pointed out that the respondent did not lead any evidence, though he was examined as RW1, to establish that he did not have sufficient means; and that this is vitally pertinent because, his specific case, in the objections filed before the Trial Court, was solely that she is working as a Guest Lecturer in a College, thus being capable of maintaining herself; thus he being not liable to maintain her. She predicated that, when her client is not a married person and when, in her examination as PW1, she admitted that she is working in a College, but receiving a meager remuneration of Rs.5,000/-per month, it was impermissible for the Trial Court to have still found that she did not lead proper evidence against her father to prove his income or means. She thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed and the Original Petition be ordered as prayed for.

8. We notice from the endorsements on the files that the respondent has been validly served summons from this Court. However, he has chosen not to be present in person, or to be represented through counsel; thus constraining us to dispose of this Appeal in his absence.

9. Smt.Adorn Anna Martin has handed over to us all the documents and evidence on record; and we, therefore, deem it appropriate to dispose of this matter based on the sa