New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment in a case involving family property and inheritance. A woman’s legal status as a widow arises from marriage and the death of her husband. The court stated that even if a woman is accused of having an illicit relationship with another man after her husband’s death, her legal status as a widow and the legal rights associated with it cannot be revoked solely on this basis.
The court also stated that a person’s right to be a legitimate child and legal heir cannot be deprived of their right to be a legitimate child and legal heir based solely on verbal allegations or claims. To challenge the legitimacy of a child, strong, independent, and reliable evidence must be presented as per the standards prescribed by the Indian Evidence Act. A single bench of Justice Anil Kumar made this observation while accepting the first appeal in a civil dispute pending since 2001 in Ballia district.
The court completely set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Second Additional District Judge of Ballia in 2000, which refused to recognize the woman as the widow of her deceased husband. The High Court, while allowing the appeal, dismissed the original suit filed by the plaintiff.
What is the whole matter?
This entire dispute concerns a family in Ballia district. According to information, the late Shripati Pandey had three sons: Ram Avadh Pandey, Vindhyachal Pandey, and Jagat Narayan Pandey. Vindhyachal Pandey was married to Rajeshwari Devi, who died in 1938 without any children. Following this, Harishankar Pandey, son of the late Ram Avadh Pandey, filed an original civil suit in 1988. Plaintiff Harishankar Pandey sought a court declaration that Rajeshwari Devi was not the widow of the late Vindhyachal Pandey.
Additionally, it was claimed that Defendants 2 and 3, Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar, were not the legitimate sons and legal heirs of the late Ram Avadh Pandey, but rather the sons of Rajeshwari Devi and Ram Avadh Pandey. The plaintiff argued that Rajeshwari Devi, as a Brahmin widow, was not permitted to remarry, and that by engaging in the alleged relationship, she had subsequently lost her legal status and rights as a widow of her first husband.
