Summary
A partition claimant asserted that she was the widow of her maternal uncle, relying principally on a registered agreement of marriage. The Supreme Court held that she bore the burden of proving a valid marriage and had established neither its solemnization through customary rites nor a custom permitting marriage within the prohibited relationship. The agreement was not a Special Marriage Act certificate and did not itself establish the marriage. The trial court decree rejecting her claim was restored.
Issues
- Whether the registered marriage agreement and witness assertions established a valid marriage for succession.
- Whether a custom permitting the prohibited relationship was pleaded and proved.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Proof of solemnization through applicable customary rites and ceremonies was necessary; the registered agreement alone did not establish such solemnization. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15, 18)
Held
- The claimant’s estate claim depended on her asserted marriage, so the burden of proving it remained on her. Defendants denying the marriage were not barred from disputing its validity. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 18)
- The agreement was not a marriage-registration certificate under the Special Marriage Act, and there was no evidence of the required customary ceremonies. (¶¶ 13, 14, 18)
- The asserted community custom permitting marriage to a maternal uncle was neither pleaded nor proved by instances or a recognised judicial precedent. Judicial notice could not supply that deficiency. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. The trial court’s judgment and decree were restored, rejecting the claimant’s entitlement to the estate on the basis of the unproved marriage.