The Burden of Proof Map
Most people can name a law. Almost nobody can say, off the top of their head, who actually has to prove what under it, or how sure a court has to be before it rules. Pick a route below and see the same six questions answered every time: claim, burden, standard, evidence, court power, consequence.
Three different standards appear on this page — beyond reasonable doubt (criminal),preponderance of probability (civil and quasi-judicial), and paternity's ownconclusive-unless-rebutted presumption. Which one applies changes everything about how a claim actually gets decided — and most viral claims about any of these six routes quietly assume the wrong one.
A wife alleges cruelty by her husband or his relatives under BNS §§85–86.
On the prosecution — this is a criminal charge, not a civil claim.
Beyond reasonable doubt, the ordinary criminal standard. Nothing about this offence lowers it.
Witness testimony, medical records, contemporaneous complaints and communications, assessed under ordinary criminal evidence rules — no special relaxed regime.
Cannot arrest automatically — police must justify arrest under the Arnesh Kumar checklist; anticipatory bail is available before arrest.
Conviction requires the full criminal standard to be met. This is also the offence with a genuinely low reported conviction rate — a separate question this page isn't measuring, covered on its own terms in a future Data Note.
An aggrieved person applies under PWDVA §12 for protection, residence or monetary relief.
On the applicant to make out her case for the relief sought.
Preponderance of probability — this is a civil remedy, not a criminal prosecution, even though breach of an order later carries criminal consequences.
A Domestic Incident Report (DIR) prepared by a Protection Officer in the prescribed format, plus affidavits. The Magistrate must consider the DIR, where one exists, before passing an order.
Can grant ex-parte interim protection, residence or monetary relief pending a full hearing — the whole point of the civil route is speed.
Protection, residence and monetary orders. Breaching a protection order is itself a separate criminal offence under the Act.
A woman complains of sexual harassment at work to her employer's Internal Committee under the POSH Act.
The complainant must present a credible, probable account; the respondent must then rebut it — both sides carry part of the burden.
Preponderance of probability. The Supreme Court said so explicitly: “there is no need to establish the charge... beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal proceeding.”
Testimony, consistency, context and conduct — strict documentary or eyewitness proof is not required, since most harassment happens without either.
The Internal Committee is quasi-judicial, not a court — it must follow natural justice and finish within 90 days. Its findings can be challenged in a High Court under Article 226, not appealed as a normal judgment.
Disciplinary action against the respondent if the complaint is upheld; no adverse action if the evidence doesn't clear the 50%-or-more threshold.
A spouse claims maintenance under BNSS §144, HMA §§24–25, or HAMA §18, depending on which proceeding is in play.
On the claimant to show inability to maintain themselves and the other side's capacity to pay — but the Supreme Court's Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) framework makes disclosure mandatory for both parties, not just the claimant.
Preponderance of probability, as in any civil proceeding.
A standard-format affidavit of assets, income and liabilities from both sides — salary slips, tax returns, disclosures — mandated by Rajnesh v. Neha specifically to stop income concealment from deciding these cases by default.
Can draw an adverse inference against a party who conceals income or fails to disclose, and can direct further discovery.
An amount fixed on the facts — needs, income, standard of living, dependants. No statutory formula of “X% of salary” exists under any of these routes.
A husband disputes the paternity of a child born during the marriage.
On the husband to rebut the statutory presumption — the law starts by treating him as the father, not the other way round.
BSA §116 calls birth during a valid marriage “conclusive proof” of legitimacy. That is a much higher bar than a normal civil preponderance — it can only be displaced by one specific route: proof of non-access.
Proof that the spouses had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been conceived. A bare request for a DNA test is not, by itself, evidence of anything.
Discretion to order DNA testing — exercised only where a real evidentiary foundation exists, weighed against the presumption and the child's interests, not granted on request.
If the presumption isn't rebutted, legal paternity is fixed — regardless of what a biological test might show, because no test was ever ordered to find out.
A spouse relies on the other's adultery as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
On the spouse alleging it — not on the spouse accused of it.
Preponderance of probability, the civil matrimonial standard — not the criminal standard, since adultery hasn't been a crime since Joseph Shine (2018).
Circumstantial evidence can be enough. Courts have long recognised that adultery ordinarily happens privately — photographic or eyewitness proof was never the real requirement, even before decriminalisation.
Weighs the totality of circumstances; can also find a wife “living in adultery” for the separate purpose of BNSS §144 maintenance eligibility — a different question from the divorce ground itself.
A valid, provable ground for divorce for either spouse against the other, plus a possible maintenance consequence that currently runs only one way.
Same six questions. Six different answers.
Every source above is the same source used everywhere else on this site — nothing here was written just for this page.