Report No. 18
Clause 19
This has been suggested by section 21 of the existing Converts' Marriage Dissolution Act. That section (besides providing that co-habitation is evidence of marriage-a provision which need not be enacted) embodies two presumptions-
(i) Voluntary neglect to cohabit is sufficient evidence of desertion or repudiation and of such desertion, etc. being in consequence of conversion.
(ii) Refusal to cohabit is sufficient evidence of desertion, etc. and of the desertion, etc. being in consequence of the conversion.
[In both cases, the voluntary neglect or refusal should be after the petitioner's conversion and after knowledge thereof by the respondent, and in both cases evidence can be tendered to show some other cause for his refusal or voluntary neglect.]
So far as the first presumption is concerned, it can be broken up into two parts again, namely:-
(a) presumption about voluntary neglect amounting to desertion, and
(b) presumption about voluntary neglect being in consequence of the conversion.
The second presumption can also be similarly broken up. The process would therefore lead to four presumptions, in all, namely:
1. Voluntary neglect proves desertion.
2. Voluntary neglect further proves that desertion is in consequence of the conversion.
3. Refusal to cohabit proves desertion.
4. Refusal to cohabit further proves that the desertion is in consequence of the conversion.
It has been considered unnecessary to deal with the case of voluntary neglect; we can simplify the clause by confining it to refusal to cohabit. Presumptions Nos. 1 and 2 therefore go out of the picture.
As regards presumption No. 3, in view of the language adopted in the substantive clause,1 which uses the formula "refusal to cohabit" instead of "desertion", the presumption becomes redundant.
The presumption at No. 4 has been embodied in the clause under discussion, as a useful one. Certain verbal changes have been made for simplicity and precision.
1. Clause 6.
Back
