The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman’s status as a widow, once her marriage and the death of her husband are admitted, cannot be extinguished merely on the allegation of a subsequent illicit relationship.
The court observed that,
“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.”
It further held that an allegation of illegitimacy cannot be established merely by suspicion, allegation or proof of an alleged relationship of the mother with another person.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar-X in First Appeal No. 91 of 2001, filed by Rajeshwari Devi and others against Hari Shankar Pandey and another.
The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated November 7/21, 2000, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ballia, whereby the suit filed by Hari Shankar Pandey had been decreed.
The original suit sought a declaration that Rajeshwari Devi was not the widow of Late Vindhyachal Pandey and that Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar were not the legitimate sons and legal heirs of the late Ram Awadh Pandey.
The plaintiff had admitted that Rajeshwari Devi was married to Vindhyachal Pandey, who died in 1938, but alleged that she subsequently developed a relationship with Ram Awadh Pandey and that Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar were born from that relationship.
The trial court had principally relied upon a judgment dated May 7, 1963, passed in proceedings under Section 488 of the Cr.P.C., in which maintenance had been awarded to Mantu Rani after recording that Ram Awadh Pandey had kept Rajeshwari Devi as his concubine.
The order was affirmed in revision. On that basis, the trial court concluded that Rajeshwari Devi had lost her status as the widow of Vindhyachal Pandey and that Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar were not his legitimate heirs.
Read also: Allahabad HC Quashes Bar Council’s Indefinite Interim Suspension of Two Advocates
The High Court, however, found that the suit itself was not maintainable in the manner in which it had been framed.
It held that the plaintiff had alleged that the defendants had obtained entries concerning the property but had not specifically challenged the relevant mutation proceedings or sought the necessary consequential relief.
“Such relief cannot be granted indirectly when the necessary consequential relief has not been claimed,” the court said.
It accordingly held that the suit was hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
On the question of Rajeshwari Devi’s status, the court noted that the plaintiff himself had admitted her marriage with Vindhyachal Pandey and his death in 1938.
It held that once these facts were admitted, “the legal consequence of widowhood follows.”
Even if she subsequently developed an illicit relationship with Ram Awadh Pandey, that circumstance, by itself, could not divest her of the legal status of widow.
The court said that a legal status could be displaced only by establishing a legally recognised fact having that consequence.
The court also rejected the challenge to the legitimacy and parentage of Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar.
It held that an allegation of illegitimacy was a serious allegation carrying legal and social consequences and could not be established merely by suspicion or an alleged relationship of the mother with another person.
Referring to Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the court said that where a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage, the statutory presumption of legitimacy cannot be displaced merely by proving an alleged illicit relationship, the requisite non-access at the relevant time must be established.
The court found the evidence led by the plaintiff wholly insufficient. Neither the plaintiff nor his supporting witness was shown to have any special means of knowledge regarding the alleged relationship, said to have existed around 1960.
No independent witness or reliable chain of circumstances was produced.
The allegation, therefore, remained “a bald assertion, unsupported either by direct evidence or by a reliable chain of circumstances.”
The High Court further held that the earlier proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. could not be treated as conclusive proof of Rajeshwari Devi’s status or the legitimacy and parentage of Shiv Sagar and Shiv Kumar.
Rajeshwari Devi was not a party to those proceedings and had no opportunity to contest the evidence or cross-examine the witnesses.
The court observed that such proceedings were intended to provide a speedy and summary remedy for maintenance and were not meant to finally adjudicate title, succession, inheritance or proprietary rights.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree dated November 7/21, 2000, and dismissed the original suit.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case: Rajeshwari Devi and Others vs Hari Shankar Pandey And Another
Case No: First Appeal No. – 91 of 2001
Date of Order: 06.10.2026
Status: Allowed
