mean much to see whether the marriage had taken place or not. The first appellate Court, I think, was too technical and gave undue weightage to the customs, which were required to be performed to prove the factum of marriage. No doubt, it has been viewed in some of the judgments that in the absence of any evidence regarding ceremonies having been performed, marriage cannot be proved, but the view taken by the first appellate Court that merely living as husband and wife would not confer a status of husband and wife on the couple may not reflect the correct legal position. In this regard, the counsel for the appellants has justifiably placed reliance on the case of Tulsa & Ors. Vs. Durghatiya & Ors., 2008(2) ICC 159 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made reference to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which make a provision for Courts to draw presumption about the existence of any fact which it things likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act can also be referred here. This section provides that when court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact. Ofcourse, such opinion is not to be taken sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act or for prosecution under Sections 494, 495, 497 or 498-A IPC. Thus, the joint petition filed by the respondents before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a fact, which is relevant, where they had conceded the marriage of appellant No.1 with deceased Thuru Ram.
