VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Evidence Act › Chapter II › Section 50

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Opinions of third persons when relevant

Section 50: Opinion on relationship, when relevant

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.

Now in the BSA section 44 (Opinion on relationship, when relevant)

In plain words

When the court must form an opinion on the relationship between persons, the opinion shown by the conduct of a family member or other person with special knowledge is relevant. This alone is not enough to prove a marriage in divorce proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, or prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code.

Example: Whether A and B were married: that friends usually received and treated them as husband and wife is relevant.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Official text

When the 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, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:

Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether A and B, were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant. 1. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000). 2. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52, for “digital signature” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009). 3. Subs. by s 52, ibid., for “Digital Signature Certificate” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).

(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 50