Sanjay Kumari v Helmut Nahr

• The petitioner (wife) claimed marriage with the respondent (husband) and sought maintenance.
• The marriage was allegedly solemnized and a marriage certificate was issued.
• Instead of producing the marriage certificate, the petitioner attempted to prove the marriage through oral evidence of witnesses who attended the ceremony.
• The respondent challenged the admissibility of such oral evidence.

1. Whether oral evidence of witnesses can substitute for the marriage certificate to prove the contents and existence of the registered marriage?

• The marriage certificate is a document within the meaning of S.91 IEA and its contents must be proved by the document itself.
• Oral evidence of witnesses regarding what the marriage certificate contained is inadmissible while the document exists.
• The petitioner was required either to produce the original certificate or to lay foundation for secondary evidence under S.65 IEA (now S.62 BSA).
• Mere assertion that a marriage took place cannot override the documentary proof requirement when a formal certificate was issued.

A marriage certificate is a public document of legal significance that records specific details such as names, date, place, and rites performed. Permitting oral evidence to replace this document would open the door to fabrication of marital status. The court therefore held that S.91 applies with full force to certificates of marriage, and parties must either produce the original or satisfy the conditions for secondary evidence before oral testimony about its contents becomes relevant.