Annulment for antenuptial pregnancy requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and admissible admissions may support the finding.

In a petition for annulment based on antenuptial pregnancy by another person, the Court held that the proceeding required proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that legally admissible admissions and surrounding circumstances could be relied on if there was no realistic basis for collusion. It further held that remitting the matter for additional evidence was unjustified where the existing issues already covered the controversy. On the evidence, the Court found the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by someone other than the petitioner and that no disqualifying marital intercourse occurred after discovery, so the marriage was annulled, although one judge dissented on sufficiency of proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in remitting issues and taking additional evidence on the question whether the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage; (ii) what standard of proof governs a petition for annulment on the ground that the respondent was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage and whether admissions may be acted upon; (iii) whether, on the evidence, the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage and whether the petitioner had marital intercourse after discovering the ground for annulment.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in remitting issues and taking additional evidence on the question whether the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage.

Analysis: The proceeding was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the Hindu Marriage Act, and the material issue had already been covered by the issues framed by the trial court. Where the existing issues sufficiently embraced the controversy, a further remand for additional evidence was unnecessary and not warranted under the appellate procedure. The majority further held that the later evidence should not have been required for deciding the essential controversy.

Conclusion: The remand was unjustified.

Issue (ii): what standard of proof governs a petition for annulment on the ground that the respondent was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage and whether admissions may be acted upon.

Analysis: A matrimonial petition of this nature requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not mere preponderance of probabilities. The Court may act on legally admissible admissions if there is no real basis for collusion, and admissions are not excluded as a matter of law merely because the proceeding is matrimonial. Satisfaction under the Act must be founded on relevant material, including admissions, oral evidence and documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The petitioner had to prove the ground beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court could rely on admissions where appropriate.

Issue (iii): whether, on the evidence, the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage and whether the petitioner had marital intercourse after discovering the ground for annulment.

Analysis: The majority relied on the timing of the birth, the medical evidence regarding gestation, the respondent's symptoms, the course of the pregnancy, the weight and condition of the child at birth, and the surrounding correspondence. These matters were treated as inconsistent with conception after marriage and consistent with conception before marriage. On the separate question, the evidence did not show that the petitioner had marital intercourse with the respondent after he discovered that she was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage.

Conclusion: The respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage by a person other than the petitioner, and the petitioner had no disqualifying marital intercourse after discovery.

Final Conclusion: The marriage was annulled and the appeal succeeded on the merits, though there was a dissenting view that the proof was insufficient and the appeal should have failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a petition for annulment on the ground of antenuptial pregnancy by another person, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on legally admissible material, and it may act upon admissions and surrounding circumstances where they reliably establish the ground.

Dissenting Opinion: Mudholkar, J. held that the evidence was insufficient to discharge the petitioner's burden, that the additional evidence ought not to have been admitted, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

---