Prayagraj. Does the status of widow get lost due to illicit relationship? Allahabad High Court has given an important decision in this regard. Allahabad High Court Justice Anil Kumar accepted the appeal of the Ballia woman and rejected the plaintiff's petition, saying that her legal status as a widow cannot be lost on the basis of her illicit relationship. It was said in the petition that the wife of the person who died in 1988 was not a widow and his sons were not legitimate heirs. The petition said that the person had died in 1938. They had no children. Had a relationship with the woman and had two sons. In such a situation, she cannot be considered a widow. The argument was also given that being a Brahmin widow, she could not marry again.
Allahabad High Court, after hearing the petition, said that the petitioner himself admitted that the woman was married to the deceased man. In such a situation, according to the law, the status of widow is acquired automatically. This status is not lost by subsequent illicit relations. The court said that under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the presumption of validity of a child born out of a valid marriage cannot be broken merely by proving the mother's relationship with someone else. For this it is necessary to prove lack of access. The court said that the petitioner and the witness did not have any specific evidence regarding the illicit relationship that took place in the year 1960 and no independent witness was produced. In such a situation, Allahabad High Court declared the allegation of illicit relationship as baseless.
While setting aside the decision and decree of the ADJ Court of Ballia, the court also said that the trial court had taken quick and summary remedy proceedings. In which ownership or inheritance is not decided. The High Court said that the conclusion of the criminal court is not itself binding in a civil case. At best it can be considered a record situation. The Ballia ADG Court had given the order specifically relying on the 1963 decision, in which the woman was given a maintenance of Rs 15 per month under Section 488 of the CrPC. Also, in the decision, the woman had an illicit relationship with the appellant. The ADJ Court had said that the fake mutation registered in the property was not challenged nor was any relief sought in the result. When the plaintiff could have sought greater relief but did not do so, such a declaration cannot be made.