Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Tri) 410

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Sankari Debnath (Das) - Appellant
Versus
Sridam Karmakar - Respondent
FA 05 of 2019
Decided On : 09-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv. and A. Debbarma, Advocate, for the Appellant; A. Acharjee, Advocate, for the Respondents

A presumption of marriage exists based on cohabitation unless disproven, placing the burden of proof on the party denying the marriage status.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Family dispute regarding marital status - The court found that the appellant-wife had legitimate grounds to claim recognition as the legally married wife of the respondent-husband due to the lack of evidence to disprove the marriage. The court criticized the lower court for not giving weight to significant elements of the wife's testimony and supporting witnesses. (Paras 1-18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed for maintenance after claiming marriage to the respondent; the Family Court dismissed her claim of marriage due to insufficient evidence, citing lack of documentary proof. Subsequent testimonies indicated cohabitation and a public claim of marriage.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appellant's assertion of marriage was credible and entitled her to legal recognition and benefits as the wife.

Issues: The court addressed whether sufficient evidence demonstrated that a valid marriage existed between the parties despite the lower court's findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption of marriage arises when a couple lives together, and it is the burden of the party challenging marriage to provide evidence otherwise. Therefore, the court emphasized that the relationship established through cohabitation shifts the burden to the respondent.

Result: The judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 is set aside, recognizing the appellant as the legally married wife.

Table of Content
1. background of appeal regarding marriage status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. the court’s directive to determine marital status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. witness depositions regarding marriage evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal principles regarding marriage presumptions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. conclusion on marriage validity and relief. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

1. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati in Case No. TS (Declaration) 2 of 2018 whereby the said Judge has observed that no valid marriage is ever solemnized between the plaintiff Sri Sridam Karmakar alias Partha (the respondent herein) and the defendant Smt. Sankari Debnath (Das) (the appellant herein) is not the legally married wife of the plaintiff Sri Sridam Karmakar alias Partha (the respondent herein).

3. For the sake of brevity parties are referred to as wife & husband. The genesis of the case can be rooted from the brief fact when the appellant-wife herein filed a petition in Cr. Misc. FC/UIDP/54 of 2016 for claiming maintenance allowance for herself @ 12,000/- per month from her respondent-husband in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. The said court after examining all the prosecution witnesses and considering the monthly income of the respondent herein has allowed maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- per month to the appellant herein by the order dated 21.02.2017.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura, the respondent herein preferred a criminal revision petition being Crl. Rev. Petn. 09 of 2017 in this High Court. The said revision petition was dismissed by an Oral judgment & order dated 05.07.2017 stating inter alia as follows:

'16. But again this court is not coming to a conclusion or making any declaration as to the marital status of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner will be at liberty to establish the marital status of the petitioner or the respondent in the proper forum in accordance with law.

17. Needless to say, if any competent Civil Court declares in contradiction to what has been observed in this judgment, the petitioner will be entitled to approach the Judge, Family court for alteration of the order of maintenance. But till then this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of maintenance. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed subject to the observation made above.'

5. The respondent herein having the liberty as provided by the order dated 05.07.2017 for declaring the marital status between him and the appellant herein filed a suit in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura under Section 7 (IV) C of the COURT FEES ACT whereby the said court by the order dated impugned order dated 08.04.2019 has observed in the following manner:

'...No valid marriage is ever solemnized between the plaintiff Sri Sridam Karmakar alias Partha and the defendant Smt. Sankari Debnath (Das) and the defendant Smt. Sankari Debnath is not the legally married wife of the plaintiff Sri Sridam Karmakar alias Partha.'

While conducting the proceedings the court below has examined four prosecution witnesses four defence witnesses and marked 5 exhibits and giving weightage to the argument their no documentary evidence was placed i.e. proof of marriage. The marriage performed in Temple under the control of the Government but there is no proof. Hence the case was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.04.2019, the appellant herein has approached this court preferring an appeal seeking to setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura.

7. This court at this juncture feels it apposite to examine the prosecution witnesses and the defendant witnesses as deposed before the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati