National

Widow’s Right Over Husband’s Property Ceases If Remarriage Proven: Chhattisgarh High Court

[ad_1]

Widow's Right Over Husband's Property Ceases If Remarriage Proven: Chhattisgarh Court

Where remarriage is about up as defence, it must be strictly proved, the court docket mentioned (Representational)

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh:

The Chhattisgarh High Court has noticed that lady’s proper over the property of her useless husband will stop if her remarriage is “strictly proven” as per the legislation.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Ok Agrawal made the commentary in a current order whereas dismissing an attraction associated to a property swimsuit filed towards Kiya Bai by her useless husband’s cousin brother Loknath, who claimed that she had remarried as per native rituals.

“According to Section 6 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act 1856, in case of remarriage, all the formalities for marriage are required to be proven,” the order mentioned.

“… The effect of the valid remarriage is the widow losing her right to the property inherited from the previous husband. Therefore, where remarriage is set up as defence, it has to be strictly proved, looking to devastating consequences to be befallen upon the widow in the shape of depriving her the right to property,” it mentioned.

As per the order, the dispute pertains to the sharing of property of Kiya Bai’s husband Ghasi, who died in 1942 in Chhattisgarh’s Raigarh district.

The property in dispute initially belonged to Sugriv, who had 4 sons – Mohan, Abhiram, Goverdhan and Jeeverdhan – all useless now. Goverdhan had one son Loknath, the plaintiff within the case, who can be now useless, and Ghasi was the son of Abhiram.

Loknath had moved the court docket claiming that Kiya Bai, after her husband’s dying, remarried in 1954-55 by way of “Chudi” type (a standard customized in Chhattisgarh the place a person marries a widow by providing her bangles). Therefore, she and her daughter would get no share within the property being ruled by clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz.

Kiya Bai, who additionally died in the course of the pendency of the swimsuit, and her daughter in a joint assertion had mentioned the partition of the property occurred when Ghasi was alive.

The two had mentioned that after Ghasi’s dying, they remained in possession of the swimsuit property and Kiya Bai’s identify was included within the income data by tehsildar (income officer) in 1984 in accordance with the legislation.

They had mentioned Kiya Bai by no means remarried and the civil swimsuit needs to be dismissed.

After listening to the matter, the High Court in its order mentioned there is no such thing as a admissible proof on file to carry that Kiya Bai had remarried and misplaced her proper to the property.

“… as it has already been held that the effect of remarriage would be, widow loses her right in the property inherited from her husband and unless the fact of remarriage is strictly proved after observing the ceremonies required as per Section 6 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act 1856, the fact of remarriage cannot be said to be established by which the right to property, which is a constitutional right, is lost that too by a widow,” it mentioned.

Earlier a trial court docket had held that Kiya Bai and her daughter weren’t entitled to any share within the property, which the primary appellate court docket reversed, holding that in the course of the lifetime of Ghasi and his father Abhiram, the swimsuit property was partitioned and Kiya Bai remained in its possession after Ghasi’s dying.

After the Hindu Succession Act-1956 got here into drive, Kiya Bai turned the full proprietor and as such, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any decree, the appellate court docket had held.

Later, a second attraction was filed within the excessive court docket.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by India07 employees and is printed from a syndicated feed.)

[ad_2]
(THIS STORY HAS NOT BEEN EDITED BY INDIA07 TEAM AND IS AUTO-GENERATED FROM A SYNDICATED FEED.)

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please close Adblocker