Allegation Of Illicit Relationship Does Not Divest A Woman Of Her Legal Status As Widow: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the marriage of a woman and the death of her husband are admitted, her status as his widow follows as a legal consequence and is not lost merely because she is alleged to have formed a relationship with another man after the husband's death.
Justice Anil Kumar-X held
“The status of widow is a legal status arising from marriage and the death of the husband. It cannot be extinguished merely because an individual or even society chooses, according to personal belief, conduct or convenience, not to recognise such status. A legal status can be displaced only by establishing a legally recognised fact having that consequence.”
Harishankar Pandey sued before the IInd Additional District Judge, Ballia for a declaration that defendant no. 1, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, was not the widow of Late Vindhyachal Pandey, and that defendant nos. 2 and 3, Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar, were not the legitimate sons and legal heirs of Late Ram Awadh Pandey.
He pleaded that Vindhyachal Pandey died issueless in 1938, that Rajeshwari Devi thereafter formed a relationship with Ram Awadh Pandey from which defendant nos. 2 and 3 were born, that as a Brahmin widow she could not remarry, and that the defendants had secured entries in the records in collusion.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, relying principally on a judgment dated 07.05.1963 under Section 488 Cr.P.C. in Mantu Rani Vs. Ram Awadh Pandey, affirmed in revision on 01.01.1964, in which it was recorded that Ram Awadh Pandey had kept Rajeshwari Devi as his concubine.
In appeal, the defendants argued that parentage could not be inferred from that observation alone and that summary maintenance proceedings to which defendant no. 1 was not a party could not determine status.
On maintainability, the Court held that the plaintiff, while alleging that the defendants had obtained entries affecting the property, had neither challenged the mutation proceedings nor claimed consequential relief, which could not be granted indirectly. The suit as framed was therefore hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
On status, the Court held that the plaintiff had himself admitted the marriage and the husband's death in 1938 and had pleaded no fact capable in law of ending the widowhood. It observed that mutually destructive pleas cannot be advanced to displace a case already admitted.
On legitimacy, the Court held
“An allegation of illegitimacy is a serious allegation carrying legal and social consequences. It cannot be established merely by suspicion, allegation or proof of an alleged relationship of the mother with another person.”
It held that a bare assertion of relationship does not acquire the value contemplated by Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires an opinion expressed by conduct by a person having special means of knowledge, and that where Section 112 applies, the presumption of legitimacy can be displaced only on proof of non-access. The plaintiff was examined in 1997 aged about 58 and P.W.-2 Harihar Chaubey was about 60, while the relationship was said to have existed around 1960, and no independent witness was produced, observed the Court.
On the Section 488 Cr.P.C. judgment, the Court held that defendant no. 1 was not a party to it, that the conditions of Section 33 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied and that a summary maintenance proceeding did not fall within Section 41.
“The earlier judgment could, at the highest, be considered as a circumstance forming part of the record. It could not be treated as conclusive or binding proof of the matters which the Civil Court was required to independently determine.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 7.11.2000/21.11.2000 were set aside and the suit was dismissed.