Burden of proof

I n pr o c e e di n g un de r S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Hi n du Ma r r i a ge Ac t
t h e Co u r t i s n o t o bl i ge d t o pr e s s f o r bu r de n o f pr o o f . T h e
Co u r t i n t h e c a s e of
Ra v i n de r K a u r
v.
Ma k h a n S i n gh ,
1
f o l l o wi n g t h e pr i n c i pl e s l a i d do wn i n t h e pr e v i ou s c a s e s
h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s a n i mpl i e d obl i ga t i o n i n l a w u po n a pa r t y
t o pr o du c e t h e be s t e v i de n c e i n i t s po we r a nd po s s e s s i o n
f o r pr o pe r de t e r mi n a t i o n o f t he ma t t e r i n i s s ue be f o r e t he
Co u r t . T h e Co u r t h e l d a s u n de r : I t i s a s e t t l e d pr i n c i pl e of
l a w t h a t a pe r s o n wh o a ppr oa c h e s t h e Co u r t h a s pr i ma r y
o n u s t o pr o v e t h e f a c t s a v e r r e d f o r t h e gr a n t o f t h e r e l i e f
pr a y e d f o r . B u t i t i s e qu a l l y t r u e t h a t t h e pa r t i e s h a v e t o
di s c h a r ge t h e i r r e s pe c t i v e o n u s i n t h e pr o c e e di n gs u n de r
S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Hi n du Ma r r i a ge Ac t . S u c h pr o c e e di n gs a r e
k i n d of s u mma r y pr o c e e di n gs a n da r e n o r ma l l y n e v e r pu t t o
r e gu l a r t r i a l . I n t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , i t be c o me s n e c e s s a r y
t h a t t h e pa r t i e s t o t h e s e pr o c e e di n gs mu s t c o me be f o r e t h e
Co u r t wi t h c l e a n h a n ds a n d mu s t di s c h a r ge t h e i r
r e s pe c t i v e o n u s . Me r e l y v a gue de n i a l o r t h e i r be i n g n o
a f f i da v i t i n s u ppo r t o f t h e c a s e of e i t he r o f t h e pa r t i e s ,
c a n n o t gi v e a dv a n t a ge t o t h a t pa r t y i n t h e e v e n t a n y pa r t y
wi t h h ol d t h e be s t e v i de n c e wh i c h i n n o r ma l c o u r s e h e / s h e
o u gh t t o h a v e i n po we r a n d pos s e s s i o n t h e Cou r t wo u l d be
we l l wi t h i n i t s j u r i s di c t i o n t o dr a w a dv e r s e i nf e r e n c e
a ga i n s t t h a t pa r t y . I n t h i s r e ga r d, r e f e r e n c e c a n be ma de t o
t h e c a s e o f .
2
I t i s e x pe c t e d f r o m e v e r y l i t i ga n t i r r e s pe c t i v e o f t h e f a c t
wh e t he r h e i s s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r om t h e Co u r t o r n o t t h a t h e
wo u l d s t a t e t r ue a n dc o r r e c t f a c t s . T h e s e i s on l y i mpl i e d
bu t s pe c i f i c o bl i ga t i o n u po n e v e r y pa r t y wh o a ppr o a c h e s
t h e Co u r t t o v e r i f y t he f a c t s t r u e t o t h e k n o wl e dge a n d
be l i e f o f t h e pa r t y s pe c i a l l y i n t h e c a s e s o f pr e s e n t k i nd
wh e r e t h e Co u r t h a s t o t a k e
pr i ma f a c i e
v i e w k e e pi n g i n mi n d t h e u r ge n c y o f t h e ma t t e r r e ga r di n g
gr a n t o r r e f u s a l o f ma i n t e n a n c e . P r i ma r i l y t h e o n u s h a s t o
be di s c h a r ge d by r e s pe c t i v e pa r t i e s i n s uppo r t o f t h e
a v e r me n t s ma de i n t h e a ppl i c a t i o n o r r e pl y a s t h e c a s e ma y
be . Co n c e pt of h e a v y bu r de n of pr o o f wo u l d be a ppl i c a bl e
du r i n g t h e t r i a l wh e r e t he pa r t i e s h a v e t he l i be r t y t o l e a d
o r a l a n d do c u me n t a r y e v i de n c e i n s u ppo r t o f t h e i r
c a s e . T h e Co u r t wo u l d be we l l wi t h i n i t s j ur i s di c t i o n t o
dr a w a dv e r s e i n f e r e n c e a ga i n s t a pa r t y who a c t u a l l y o r
a t t e mpt t o wi t h h o l d t h e be s t e v i de n c e a n dt r u e f a c t s f r o m
t h e Co u r t wi t h i n t e n t i on t o f r u s t r a t i o n t h e c l a i m of
o t h e r s a t t h i s pr e l i mi n a r y s t a t e o f pr o c e e di n gs .
3

1
(1999) 1 PLR 389
2
Sangeeta vs. Ved Parkash, I (2000) DMC 470 P&H.
3
Gurvinder Singh v. Harjit Kaur, (1998-2) 119 PLR 422




F o r de t e r mi ni n g t h e c l a i m f o r ma i n t e n a n c e
pe n de n t e l i t e
a n d t h e e x pe n s e s o f pr o c e e di ngs a s c o n t e mpl a t e d u n de r
S e c t i o n 2 4 of t h e Ac t , wh a t o ugh t t o be k e pt i n mi n d i s
t h a t i n c a s e t h e a ppl i c a n t h a s n o i n de pe n de n t me a n s he o r
s h e i s a l wa y s e n t i t l e d t o t h e ma i n t e n a n c e a n de x pe n s e s ,
u n l e s s go o d c a u s e i s s h own t o de pr i v e hi m o r h e r o f i t .
T h e go o d c a u s e f o r de pr i v i ng a n a ppl i c a n t f o r t h e
ma i n t e n a n c e a nd e x pe n s e s o f t he pr o c e e di n gs c o u l d be t he
a v a i l a bi l i t y o f t h e a n a s s u r e di n de pe n de n t i n c o me de r i v e d
f r o m t h e pr o pe r t y , s e r v i c e , o c c u pa t i o n , o r o t h e r s o u r c e s
wh i c h ma y s a t i s f y t h e ge n u i ne n e e ds pr o v i di n g s u ppo r t
t o h i m o r h e r k e e pi n g i n v i e w t h e s t a t u s o f t h e f a mi l y t o
wh i c h h e o r s he be l o n gs a n d no t t h e i n c o me o f t h e wi f e s
pa r e n t s o r o t h e r r e l a t i o n s wh i c h c a nn o t be t a k e n i n t o
a c c o u n t s o a s t o c o n s t i t u t e g o o d c a u s e f o r n o t gr a n t i n g
i n t e r i m ma i n t e n a n c e a nd e x pe n s e s o f t h e
pr o c e e di n gs . T he r e ma y be c a s e s wh e r e t h e c ha r a c t e r a n d
gr a v i t y o f t h e c o n du c t i s s u c h wh i c h ma y be f o un d
r e pu gn a n t t o t h e c o n c e pt a n d t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f ma r r i a ge
a n d i t ma y be wh o l l y u n j u s t t o i gn o r e t h e m
wh i l e c o n s i de r i ng t h e que s t i o n o f r e l e a s i n g or wi t h h ol di n g
t h e be n e f i t c o n t e mpl a t e d u n de r S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Ac t , bu t
i t a l l de pe n ds o n t h e f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e a n d c o g e n t r e a s o n s
h a v e t o be r e c o r de d f o r wi t h h o l di n g t h e gr a n t o f t h e
be n e f i t s e c u r e d u n de r S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Ac t .


T he wi f e i s not bound t o f i l e t he wr i t t e n s t a t e me nt
be f or e mov i ngt he c our t f or gr a nt of ma i nt e n a nc e
pe nde nt e l i t e
a nd e x pe ns e s of t he pr oc e e di ngs . T he whol e obj e c t of
a wa r di ng e x pe ns e s of pr oc e e di ngs i s t oe na bl e t he pa r t y
t o f i ght t he c a s e

Independent income of wife
T h e j u r i s di c t i o n t o pa s s a n o r de r u n de r S e c t i on 2 4 o f t he
Hi n du Ma r r i a ge Ac t , 1 9 5 5 a r i s e s a s s o o n a s a n y pr o c e e di n gs
a r e i n s t i t u t e du nde r t h e Ac t . T he c o n di t i on f o r t h e e x e r c i s e
o f j u r i s di c t i o n u n de r t h i s s e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e a ppl i c a n t
s h o u l d n o t h a v e a n y i n de pe n de n t i n c o me s u f f i c i e n t f o r h e r
o r h i s s u ppo r t o r n e c e s s a r y e x pe n s e s of t he pr o c e e di n gs . I f
t h e s a i d c o n di t i o n i s s a t i s f i e d, t he c o u r t h a s
j u r i s di c t i o n a n d po we r t o o r de r t h e o ppo s i t e pa r t y t o pa y
e x pe n s e s of t h e pr o c e e di n gs a n d/ o r mo n t h l y ma i n t e n a n c e
o f s u c h s u m a s ma y be f o u n d r e a s o n a bl e . Un de r t h e
pr o v i s i o n t he s u f f i c i e n c y of i n de pe n de n t i nc o me i s t h e
ba s i s f o r h o l di n g wh e t he r i t i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r h e r
ma i n t e n c e n c e a n d pr o c e e di n gs

T h e o bj e c t o f S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e Ac t i s t o pr o v i de a
mo n t h l y i n c o me a n de x pe n s e s o f t h e l i t i ga t i o n t o a n
i n di ge n t s po u s e t o e n a bl e i t t o pr o s e c u t e or de f e n d t he
pr o c e e di n gs u nde r t h e Ac t a nd t h e l a w s e e s t h a t n o bo dy
i s di s a bl e d f r o m pr o s e c u t i n g o r de f e n di n g t h e ma t r i mo n i a l
c a s e by s t a r v a t i o n o r l a c k of f un ds


Cases where maintenance pendente lite is denied to a wife on ground of
misconduct
Colleagues to quote and use this wherever possible i.e. section 18 HAMA, or
interim alimony of CRPC 125, or in HMA section 24 itself.. Seven case laws
on whether the misconduct of an applicant should be considered while
deciding the interim alimony -:
1.Patna High Court case of Sadhana Devi V/s. Bijendra Kumar & others of
3rd March 1998 in para 6 and 7 court has not accepted the saying of wife
for not staying with her husband as he is not working, because even at the
time of marriage he was not working and pursuing his studies. Thus conduct
of wife was wrong and Court has argued it in detailed and refuse her interim
alimony.
2. Shrichand V/s. IV Additional dist. Judge, Allahabad, Santosh Kumari,I(1986)
DMC 91 All, Narendra Kumar Mehta V/s. Suraj Mehta,I(1982) AP 100 etc -
The grant of maintenance pendent elite and expenses under section 24 is
discretionary with the court though such discretion has to be judicially
exercised. The guiding principle would appear to be that if the applicant has
no independent means he or she is entitled to maintenance and expenses,
unless good cause to shown to deprive the applicant of it. The order
exhausts itself with the conclusion of the main proceedings including the
appeal filed if any. (Shashi kiran - law of maintenance - page 49).
3. Dwarkadas Gurumukhdas Agrawal V/s. Bhanuben,I(1987) DMC 46
Gujarat - There is nothing in section 24 to prevent a Court from taking into
consideration the conduct of the parties. But that is too spacious a
contention since at least in the original proceedings if this point is
conceded, it would require the Court to judge the merits of the rival
contentions of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony
and if such as exercise is permitted the Court's discretion would be fettered
merely by the nature of the allegations made in the petition and would be
compelled to examine the merits of the same at least prima facie. (Shashi
kiran - law of maintenance - page 49)
4. Even in Balbir Singh V/s. Swarna Kanta AIR 1981 Raj 266; 1980 Raj LW
654 - L It is within the discretion of the court to make an order for
maintenance pendent elite, and merely because two of the conditions,
namely, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no indepdendent
income sufficient for her/his support and necessary expenses of the
proceedings, and the other spouse has sufficient means, are satisfied, then it
is not necessary for the Court to order payment of maintenance pendente
lite and expenses of the proceedings. Therefore, though it is not specifically
provided that the conduct of the applicant for maintenance pendent elite
and expenses of the proceedings is to be taken into consideration, but the
fact that the discretion of the Court to make an order or not to make an
order goes to show that the Court has to taken the conduct and the other
circumstances also into consideration while disposing of the application
u/sec. 24 l ong back in 1986 it was held that though this section does not
refer to the conduct of parties as in sect.25, the Court can take into account
the conduct of parties. (Shashi kiran - law of maintenance - page 61)
5. Vinod Kumar V/s. kaushalya, I (1996) DMc 603 Raj - It is true that if suit
for divorce is decreed after trial on the ground of adultery then wife will not
be entitled to get permanent alimony and maintenance u/sec 25 of HMa
because adultery alleged against her is proved. But at the stage of the
proceeding u/sec 24 if the HMA adultery is only alleged. There is large gap
between "adultery alleged" at the stage of proceeding under section 24 of
the aforesaid Act and adultery found to be proved by court trial at the stage
of proceeding u/sec 25 of the said Act. (Shashi kiran - law of maintenance -
page 50)
6. Munnibai V/s. Jagdish Rathore, 1999 (2) CCC 6 (MP) - There may be cases
where the character and gravity of the conduct is such which may be found
repugnant to the concept and the institution of marriage and it may be
wholly unjust to ignore them while considering the question of releasing or
withholding the benefit contemplated u/sec 24 of the Act, but it all depends
on the facts of each case and cogent reasons have to be recorded for
withholding the grant of the benefit u/sec 24 of the Act. (Shashi kiran - law
of maintenance - page 54)
7. Sulochanabai v/s. Tikaram, I (1986) DMC 351 MP - The court normally
consider it predent to adhere to the principle of a marriage de facto carries
the right of alimony pendent elite; but this principle of matrimonial law has
necessarily to be considered in the light of the attending circumstances,
when the court exercise its discretion as to whether the wife should be
granted or not alimony. The conduct of the parties can not be ignored by
the court while passing the orders u/sec 24 of HMA. In a case where the
wife has brought cohabitation to an end by such misconduct for which the
husband is not be blamed, the Court may well refuse to grant alimony and
expenses for litigation pendent lite. (wife was having extramarital affair with
Dhanraj Hirkane. It was hled that the misconduct on the part of the wife,
having thus been established, she has obviously no case for her claim for
alimony and litigation expenses pendent elite. Friends, believe me this is not
given to me by any Advocate, but has practically read lot of books and
searched in internet.