Maya Gopinathan v Anoop S.B., Diary No.- 22430-2022
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnA8RNRWqS7Zre1aMANvk_SVlW0UgQ?e=bIVCsJ
Stridhan is the absolute property of a woman, and while the husband has no control over it, he can use it in times of distress. Nevertheless, he has a moral obligation to return it or its value to his wife.
Maya Gopinathan v Anoop S.B., Diary No.- 22430-2022
Supreme Court of IndiaHaving taken a close look at the materials on record and the conclusions
drawn by the High Court on the basis thereof, we have little doubt in
our mind that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. This is
because of an erroneous approach adopted by the High Court by
demanding a standard of proof as if it were seized of a criminal trial as
well as by basing its findings on assumptions and suppositions which,
by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be borne from the evidence
on record. Also, though the judgment of the Family Court delved deep
into the evidence to arrive at reasonable findings, we have noted with
some degree of distress that the High Court criticised the judgment as
one rendered without taking into consideration the factual foundations
of the case and by jumping to conclusions.
17. We commence our discussion by reminding ourselves of a passage on
Standard of Proof found in Halsburys Laws of England4
, reading thus:
19. Standard of proof. To succeed on any issue the party bearing
the legal burden of proof must (1) satisfy a judge or jury of the
likelihood of the truth of his case by adducing a greater weight of
evidence than his opponent, and (2) adduce evidence sufficient to
satisfy them to the required standard or degree of proof. The
standard differs in criminal and civil cases.
In civil cases the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of
probabilities. However, even within this formula variations in subject
matter or in allegations will affect the standard required; the more
4 Volume 17, Fourth Edition
10
serious the allegation, for example fraud, crime or professional
misconduct, the higher will be the required degree of proof, although
it will not reach the criminal standard.
In criminal cases, the standard required of the prosecution is proof
beyond reasonable doubt. This standard is also requisite in cases of
committal for contempt, and in pension claims cases.
In matrimonial cases it seems that proof on balance of probabilities
is sufficient, although proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
rebut the presumption of the formal validity of marriage.
Once a matter is established beyond reasonable doubt it must be
taken for all purposes of law to be a fact, as there is no room for a
distinction between what is found by inference from the evidence and
what is found as a positive fact.
(underlining ours, for emphasis)
18. We find an elucidation of Standard of Proof in the seminal decision by
a bench of three Honble Judges of this Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane v.
Mrs. S. Dastane5
. This Court eloquently settled the law in the following
words:
24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact
can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of
probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act,
Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes
it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon
the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a
fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent
man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation
will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the
various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of
the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court
applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be
proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the
second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The
impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the
second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a
difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately
determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies.
25. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof by a higher standard
which generally governs criminal trials or trials involving inquiry into
issues of a quasi-criminal nature. A criminal trial involves the liberty
of the subject which may not be taken away on a mere preponderance
5
(1975) 2 SCC 326
11
of probabilities. If the probabilities are so nicely balanced that a
reasonable, not a vascillating, mind cannot find where the
preponderance lies, a doubt arises regarding the existence of the fact
to be proved and the benefit of such reasonable doubt goes to the
accused. It is wrong to import such considerations in trials of a purely
civil nature.
26. Neither Section 10 of the Act which enumerates the grounds on
which a petition for judicial separation may be presented nor Section
23 which governs the jurisdiction of the court to pass a decree in any
proceeding under the Act requires that the petitioner must prove his
case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 23 confers on the court the
power to pass a decree if it is satisfied on matters mentioned in
Clauses (a) to (e) of the section. Considering that proceedings under
the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the word satisfied must mean
satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 23 does not alter the standard
of proof in civil cases.
(underlining ours, for emphasis)
19. A bench of two Honble Judges of this Court [of which one of us (Honble
Sanjiv Khanna, J.) was a member] in a decision of recent origin in
Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni6 applied the ratio of the decision
in Dr. N.G. Dastane (supra) while reiterating that the standard of proof
for disputes in the matrimonial sphere would be preponderance of
probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Law is well-settled that inference from the evidence and circumstances
must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. Since
the mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one
another and even in straining them a little to force them to form parts
of one connected whole, there must be evidence - direct or
circumstantial - to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the facts in
6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1127
12
issue. There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct
or circumstantial, from which to infer the other fact which it is sought
to establish. In some cases, the other facts can be inferred, as much as
is practical, as if they had been actually observed. In other cases, the
inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability. If there are no
positive proved facts - oral, documentary, or circumstantial - from which
the inferences can be drawn, the method of inference would fail and
what would remain is mere speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when
drawing an inference of proof that a fact in dispute is held to be
established, there must be some material facts or circumstances on
record from which such an inference could be drawn. In civil cases
including matrimonial disputes of a civil nature, the standard of proof is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of
probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more
probable.