Question Of Marriage To Be Established On Facts Even In Absence Of Documentary Evidence: Allahabad High Court
|The question before the High Court was whether there was sufficient material on record on the basis of which the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had held that the widow had remarried after death the death of her husband.
The Allahabad High Court observed that even in case of absence of documentary evidence, the question of marriage has to be established on facts.
A widow bequeathed certain property in favour of the Petitioner, however, it was contended that since the widow remarried her interest in the husband’s estate was divested as per Section 172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
The Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed, “Even in summary proceedings where a finding has to be returned with regard to a particular fact, then such finding should be based on cogent and reliable evidence and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Question of marriage has to be established on facts even in absence of documentary evidence. A Hindu marriage is solemnized in the presence of all the relatives and friends and villagers and performed by a Priest and there facts have to be established in order of prove a valid marriage."
Advocate Hemant Kumar Mishra represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ishwar Dutt Shukla represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The dispute was with regard to the succession of the property of one Govinde. He had died in 1960 leaving behind his wife and after his death the name of his wife was recorded in the revenue records since 1964.
However, after a period of 36 years, an application was moved by two Respondents U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act for mutating their names in place of the deceased person’s wife on account of fact that she remarried 15 years ago and as per provisions of Section 172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has ceased her right to inherit the property of Govinde on account of her marriage to another person.
Accordingly, the Tehsildar while deciding the application of respondents U/S 34 of Land Revenue Code, 2006, held that the remarriage of wife had taken place about 15 years prior to filing of the said application and consequently from the date of remarriage, she has become dis-entitled to succeed the property of Govinde and any Will made subsequently will not have any effect upon bequeathing the right of the wife in favour of petitioners.
The wife passed away in 2005, however, she bequeathed the property in favour of the Petitioner through a will.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the wife has stated that she has not remarried and she was not served with any notice in proceedings U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act which were defective and in fact the orders were passed without effecting service upon her.
The question before the Court was whether there was sufficient material on record on the basis of which the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had held that the widow of Govinde had remarried after his death. The Court was of the opinion that in order to establish a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, it has to be demonstrated that the widow was remarried in accordance with Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act. Oral statement of certain parties merely stating that she remarried would not establish a valid marriage.
The Court concluded that the testimony given by nephews of the wife was totally unreliable and not trustworthy of any credence.
The Court said, “In the present case, the findings regarding Smt. Hardei’s alleged remarriage are ex facie perverse. There is no proof of the essential ceremonies, of marriage being performed nor has any custom been established; instead, the courts below relied on vague assertions, stray documents, and revenue entries, while ignoring contemporaneous records where Smt. Hardei continued to describe herself as a widow. The testimonies on which reliance was placed are inconsistent and fail to discharge the burden of proving a valid remarriage. The conclusions drawn are thus contrary to both evidence and law, and cannot be sustained.”
Further, the Court opined that the burden of proof would be upon the private respondents to establish that a valid marriage had taken place in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals which they have clearly failed to establish.
The Court said that the testimonies on which reliance was placed are inconsistent and fail to discharge the burden of proving a valid remarriage.
Accordingly, the Petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Sukh Ram & Ors V. U.P Board Of Revenue Lko Thru. Judicial Member And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:49882)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Hemant Kumar Mishra, Arti Ganguly, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ravi Prakash
Respondent: Advocates C.S.C., Ishwar Dutt Shukla, Sanjeev Dwivedi