Section 44 BSA: Opinion on Relationship, When Relevant

Section 44 BSA explains when conduct-based opinions from family members or others with special knowledge can help prove relationships.

Introduction

Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the relevance of opinions concerning the relationship of one person to another. In disputes involving marriage, parentage, legitimacy or family relationships, courts may consider how people with special knowledge of the relationship have behaved towards the persons concerned.

The section recognises that relationships may be reflected in conduct. For example, if two people have consistently been received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, that conduct may be relevant when the court considers whether they were married.

However, the provision has an important limitation: such an opinion is not sufficient by itself to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869, or in prosecutions under Sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 44 BSA corresponds to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Bare Act: Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

44. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.—

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 Divorce Act, 1869, or in prosecution under sections 82 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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.

(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.

Meaning of Section 44 BSA

Section 44 allows a court to consider an opinion about a relationship when that opinion is expressed through conduct and comes from someone who has special means of knowledge about the subject.

The provision is particularly relevant when the court must determine whether two persons were married, whether a person was recognised as another person’s child, or whether a particular family relationship existed.

Three elements are important:

1. A relationship must be in question: The court must be required to form an opinion about the relationship between two persons.
2. The opinion must be expressed through conduct: The person’s behaviour must indicate their understanding or recognition of the relationship.
3. The person must have special means of knowledge: The person must have a reliable basis for knowing about the relationship, whether as a family member or otherwise.

The section makes such an opinion a relevant fact. It does not mean that the opinion conclusively establishes the relationship or removes the need to assess other evidence.

Essential Elements of Section 44 BSA

1. The court must be considering a relationship

Section 44 applies when a relationship between two persons is relevant to a question before the court.

The relationship may concern marriage, parentage or another family connection. The particular relationship must be material to the dispute.

2. The opinion must be expressed by conduct

The statutory requirement is not simply that a person states that two individuals are related. The opinion must be expressed through conduct.

Conduct may include consistently recognising a person as a spouse or child, acknowledging the relationship in family dealings, or treating the persons concerned in a manner that reflects the claimed relationship.

The court must examine the actual conduct and its connection with the relationship in question.

3. The person must have special means of knowledge

The person providing the relevant opinion must have special means of knowledge concerning the relationship.

Such knowledge may arise from being a family member, maintaining close and longstanding contact with the family, or otherwise having a particular basis for knowing about the relationship.

Mere acquaintance or an unsupported assertion does not automatically satisfy this requirement.

4. The opinion is relevant, not conclusive

Section 44 determines the relevance of the opinion; it does not automatically establish the truth of the claimed relationship.

The court may assess the conduct, the witness’s knowledge, documentary records, testimony from other witnesses and the applicable substantive law.

Also Read: Section 54 BSA: Proof of Facts by Oral Evidence

5. The statutory proviso must be considered

The proviso expressly restricts the use of this type of opinion to prove a marriage in specified proceedings. The opinion cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient proof of marriage in those cases.

Illustration (a): Whether A and B Were Married

The first illustration asks whether A and B were married. It states that the fact that their friends usually received and treated them as husband and wife is relevant.

Explanation

Consistent social recognition of two people as husband and wife may provide evidence of how their relationship was understood by those around them.

For example, if friends regularly invited A and B as a married couple and consistently treated them as spouses, that conduct may support the existence of the claimed relationship.

However, social recognition does not automatically prove that a legally valid marriage took place. The court must consider the applicable marriage law, the evidence and any statutory requirements.

Illustration (b): Whether A Was the Legitimate Son of B

The second illustration asks whether A was the legitimate son of B. It states that the fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family is relevant.

Explanation

The way family members consistently recognise and treat a person may provide evidence concerning the person’s relationship with another family member.

For example, if B’s family has consistently recognised A as B’s son in family affairs, that conduct may be relevant when the court considers the claimed relationship.

Nevertheless, the legal determination of parentage or legitimacy may also depend on statutory presumptions, documentary evidence, other admissible evidence and the applicable law. Section 44 does not independently settle those questions.

What Does “Opinion Expressed by Conduct” Mean?

The expression refers to an opinion about a relationship that is demonstrated through behaviour rather than merely asserted in words.

For example:

• A family consistently recognises a person as the child of a particular parent.
• Friends regularly receive two individuals as husband and wife.
• A person with longstanding knowledge of a family consistently acknowledges a particular relationship through their conduct towards the persons concerned.

The conduct must be relevant to the relationship in dispute. The court must also determine whether the person whose opinion is relied upon has the special means of knowledge required by the section.

Importantly, the statutory wording concerns the opinion expressed through the conduct of the person whose opinion is relied upon. It should not be read as automatically making every act of every third party relevant under Section 44.

Who Can Provide an Opinion Under Section 44 BSA?

The section covers a person who is a member of the family or who otherwise has special means of knowledge about the relationship.

A family member may have knowledge from longstanding participation in family life. A person outside the family may also qualify if they possess a particular basis for knowing about the relationship.

The court should consider:

• The person’s connection with the individuals concerned.
• The duration and nature of that connection.
• The conduct through which the opinion was expressed.
• Whether the conduct genuinely supports the claimed relationship.
• Whether other evidence supports or contradicts the opinion.

The provision does not require that every qualifying person hold a formal professional qualification. Its focus is on special means of knowledge and conduct expressing the opinion.

Proviso to Section 44 BSA: When Is the Opinion Insufficient?

The proviso states that the opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in:

1. Proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869.
2. Prosecutions under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecutions under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 82 BNS concerns marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife in circumstances covered by the provision. Section 84 BNS concerns cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.

In these specified proceedings, an opinion expressed through conduct cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient proof of a marriage. The prosecution or party relying on the marriage must establish it through legally sufficient evidence.

The proviso does not declare conduct-based opinions irrelevant in every context. Rather, it imposes a specific limitation on their sufficiency for proving marriage in the proceedings identified by the statute.

Important Judgments Relating to Section 44 BSA

The following judgments interpreted Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which corresponds to Section 44 BSA. They remain useful for understanding the principles of relationship evidence, subject to the current statutory text and applicable law.

1. Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra

Citation: AIR 1959 SC 914; (1959) Supp (1) SCR 573

Court: Supreme Court of India

This is an important Supreme Court decision on Section 50 of the former Indian Evidence Act.

The Court explained the requirements for making an opinion about a relationship relevant. The person must have special means of knowledge about the subject, and the opinion must be expressed by conduct.

Also Read: Section 43 BSA: Opinion as to Usages, Tenets and Related Matters

The decision distinguishes a relevant opinion expressed through the witness’s own conduct from a mere assertion that a relationship exists. The statutory requirement cannot be satisfied simply by producing a witness who makes an unsupported statement about the relationship.

Legal principle: For an opinion to be relevant under the corresponding provision, the witness must have special means of knowledge and must express the opinion through conduct.

2. Amar Singh v. Chhaju Singh

Decision date: 31 January 1972

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The case considered the evidentiary principles governing proof of family relationships and the requirements of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The judgment discussed the relevance of an opinion expressed through conduct and the need to establish that the person whose opinion is relied upon has special means of knowledge about the relationship.

It also emphasised the distinction between the witness’s own conduct expressing an opinion and simply referring to the conduct of other people.

Legal principle: Evidence of relationship under the corresponding provision must satisfy the statutory requirements concerning the source of knowledge and the manner in which the opinion is expressed.

3. Chowdamma (Dead) by LRs v. Venkatappa (Dead) by LRs

Decision date: 25 August 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India

In this decision, the Supreme Court considered evidence concerning a disputed relationship and discussed Section 50 of the former Indian Evidence Act.

The Court examined the evidentiary value of testimony concerning the claimed relationship in the context of the applicable legal principles. The judgment illustrates the continuing relevance of the statutory requirements governing relationship opinions in disputes where direct evidence may be limited.

Legal principle: Evidence concerning a disputed relationship must be assessed in accordance with the statutory requirements and the circumstances of the case. The fact that a witness speaks about a relationship does not remove the need to examine the evidentiary basis for that testimony.

This judgment applied the former Evidence Act in the context of the proceedings before the Court; it should not be described as a direct interpretation of Section 44 BSA.

Difference Between Section 43 and Section 44 BSA

Basis	Section 43 BSA	Section 44 BSA
Subject	Usages, tenets, institutional governance and local terminology	Relationship between one person and another
Relevant person	Person with special means of knowledge about the specified usage, institution or terminology	Person with special means of knowledge about the relationship
Required basis	Opinion concerning one of the subjects listed in Section 43	Opinion about the relationship expressed through conduct
Example	Opinion about the customary administration of a religious institution	Family members consistently treating a person as another person’s child
Main purpose	Helps the court understand practices, institutions and specialised terms	Helps the court assess evidence concerning relationships

Both provisions concern opinions based on special knowledge, but their subject matter and statutory requirements differ.

Section 44 BSA and Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Basis	Section 44 BSA	Section 50, Indian Evidence Act
Subject	Opinion on relationship, when relevant	Opinion on relationship, when relevant
Core rule	Opinion expressed by conduct of a person with special means of knowledge is relevant	Substantially the same rule
Marriage-related limitation	Refers to the Divorce Act, 1869, and Sections 82 and 84 BNS	Referred to the Divorce Act and specified offences under the Indian Penal Code
Illustrations	Treatment of persons as spouses; treatment of a person as a legitimate son	Substantially the same illustrations
Current status	In force from 1 July 2024	Repealed, subject to applicable savings provisions

The BSA carries forward the core rule from Section 50 of the former Evidence Act while updating the statutory references in the proviso. The change in the referenced penal provisions reflects the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Related Provisions

• Section 43 BSA: Opinion as to usages, tenets and related matters.
• Section 45 BSA: Grounds of opinion, when relevant.
• Section 109 BSA: Burden of proof concerning relationships in the circumstances specified by that section.
• Section 82 BNS: Marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, subject to the statutory requirements.
• Section 84 BNS: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.

These provisions address different questions. Section 44 concerns the relevance of a particular kind of opinion; the applicable substantive law and other evidentiary provisions determine how the relationship is ultimately established.

Important Points for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

• Section 44 BSA corresponds to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The section concerns the relationship of one person to another.
• The opinion must be expressed through conduct.
• The person whose opinion is relied upon must have special means of knowledge about the relationship.
• A family member may qualify, but membership of the family is not the only possible basis of knowledge.
• The illustrations concern the treatment of two persons as husband and wife and the treatment of a person as another person’s legitimate son.
• The opinion is relevant evidence, not automatically conclusive proof of the relationship.
• The proviso restricts the sufficiency of this opinion for proving marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869, and prosecutions under Sections 82 and 84 BNS.
• Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra is an important authority on the corresponding provision of the former Evidence Act.
• Section 44 should be distinguished from Section 43 BSA, which concerns usages, tenets, institutional governance and local terminology.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 44 of the BSA?

Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the relevance of opinions about relationships when those opinions are expressed through conduct by persons having special means of knowledge.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 44 BSA?

Section 44 BSA corresponds to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. What is meant by an opinion expressed through conduct?

It means that a person’s behaviour demonstrates their opinion about a relationship. For example, consistently treating someone as a spouse or child may indicate recognition of that relationship.

4. Can a friend provide evidence under Section 44 BSA?

Yes, if the friend has special means of knowledge about the relationship and the opinion is expressed through conduct. Mere friendship or an unsupported statement is not automatically sufficient to satisfy the provision.

5. Is family treatment enough to prove legitimacy?

Family treatment may be relevant under Section 44, as shown in the statutory illustration. However, it is not automatically conclusive. The court must consider the applicable law and all relevant evidence.

6. Can an opinion under Section 44 prove a marriage in every case?

No. The proviso specifically states that such an opinion is not sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869, or in prosecutions under Sections 82 and 84 BNS.

7. What is the most important case concerning Section 44 BSA?

Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra, AIR 1959 SC 914, is a leading authority on the corresponding Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It explains the importance of special means of knowledge and an opinion expressed through conduct.

Conclusion

Section 44 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows courts to consider opinions about relationships when those opinions are expressed through the conduct of persons having special means of knowledge. The provision is useful in disputes concerning marriage, parentage and other family relationships, particularly where the way people have consistently treated one another provides relevant evidence.

However, the opinion is not automatically conclusive, and the statutory proviso imposes a specific limitation on proving marriage in certain proceedings. For examinations, remember the three central requirements: a relationship in issue, an opinion expressed through conduct, and special means of knowledge.