Widow Loses Right In Property Inherited From Previous Marriage On Valid Remarriage: Chhattisgarh HC

FACTS

• This is a property suit wherein the plaintiff has stated that the defendant's husband Ghasi died in 1942 leaving behind his wife and daughter (defendant 1 & 2).
• Ghasi's family argues that since his wife remarried in 1954-55, she ceases to have any interest in the property.
• The wife and daughter have claimed full rights on the deceased’s property.

BACKGROUND

• The dispute initially went to the trial Court and after recording all the oral and documentary evidence, the Court held that since the widow remarried in 1954-55, she would only be entitled to 5 khandi of land for maintenance.
• In the first appeal before the first appellate Court, the Court allowed the appeal of the widow and the daughter and held that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the widow had become the full owner of the suit property on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any claim in the property.
• The plaintiffs have filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court against the order of the appellate court.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

• The counsel for appellants submitted that the first appellate Court has erred in the application of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and wrongly held that clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz will not apply.
• He further submitted that the finding of the appellate Court that Ghasi’s widow did not remarry is erroneous and contrary to the record.
• There was no representation from the respondent (original defendants).

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

• A Single Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K Agrawal observed that the effect of valid remarriage is that the widow loses the right in property that she inherited from her previous husband.
• It held that where marriage is taken as a defence, it should be strictly proved as it deprives the right of the widow in the property inherited from her husband.
• The Court also held that the first appellate Court was absolutely justified in dismissing the appeal filed before it.

What do you think of this case?