Woman In Levirate Marriage, Where Widow Marries Husband's Brother, Entitled To Maintenance: HC
In a significant ruling promoting social justice and gender equality, the Patna High Court (HC) has allowed a woman's plea for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even though her marriage with the respondent was disputed and allegedly fell within prohibited degrees under Hindu Law.
The court, in Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh & Ors., set aside a June 2024 order of the Family Court, Kaimur, which had dismissed the woman's maintenance application on the grounds that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not mandatory if the woman has been socially accepted as the wife and has lived in a domestic relationship, particularly where children have been born out of that union.
The petitioner, Sangeeta Devi, claimed she married Pawan Kumar Singh in 2010 in accordance with the prevailing custom of her community, where a widow is permitted to marry her deceased husband's younger brother, a practice known as levirate marriage or kareva. The couple had two sons during their cohabitation. She alleged that Singh, a police constable, abandoned her and the children without financial support for the past six years.
The respondent denied the marriage, stating that the petitioner was his brother's widow and therefore their union was void under Hindu Marriage Act provisions prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of relationship. However, the High Court emphasized that Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act allows such marriages if they are sanctioned by custom.
'Where a long-standing and socially accepted custom exists allowing such marriage, it may be treated as valid in law," the court held.
Justice Chaudhuri noted that the woman's plea of custom had been raised and needed proper judicial examination, not outright rejection. The court also relied on the past Supreme Court decisions, including Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, to hold that cohabitation and acknowledgment of children give rise to a strong presumption of marriage.
'Disregarding such a union would not only be legally unsound but would also send a regressive message to society, undermining the dignity of women and the security of children born from such relationships," the court observed.
Calling the Family Court's rejection 'legally unsustainable", the High Court remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing, directing that both parties be allowed to lead evidence, especially on the question of custom and cohabitation.
The ruling reaffirms the principle that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare legislation meant to prevent destitution, and its benefits should not be denied on rigid technicalities, particularly where the woman has lived in a domestic relationship, raised children, and has been abandoned.
view comments
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court denies official's appeal for call data records & diary entries in corruption case
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a govt employee facing corruption charges. He sought call data records of the complainant in the case and also copies of the entries from the general diary of the office of superintendent of police, ACB Ranga Reddy Range. The accused official, who was was booked on corruption charges in 2019, requested the records under the RTI Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P Sam Koshy observed that the information sought by the accused official could impede prosecution or threaten witnesses and, therefore, cannot be provided under the RTI Act. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The case is currently pending before the ACB Court, Hyderabad. The official claimed he sought the records to defend himself before the concerned trial court. Claiming that the CDRs and the GD entry records were needed to prove his innocence, the accused official argued that the investigation in the case was completed. Moreover, since a charge sheet was filed, there was no scope for further investigation. Initially, he requested information from the public information office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). When the PIO denied the information, and subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, he approached the HC, which also turned down his petition. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo Challenging the single judge's order, he filed an appeal. The HC, after examining his argument and that of the govt counsel, upheld the PIO's response of denying the information and the subsequent responses to the first and second appeals. When he challenged the same before the division bench, the bench ruled that the accused could not seek the requested information under the RTI Act, as it was exempt under Section 8(1)(h). "Such investigation material, meant to be used against the accused, can only be obtained under Section 207 of the CrPC through the trial court at the appropriate stage," ruled the bench. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Man booked for cheating 6 of Rs 92L with job bait
Lucknow: Six job aspirants were duped of Rs 92 lakh in Gomtinagar police station area on Sunday. Gaya, Bihar native Prithviraj Goswami, staying in Eldeco Green City, told police that on the train to Lucknow, he met Sanjay Kumar of Kanpur and they became friends. Kumar told him he helped people secure govt jobs, including positions in courts. Goswami, who was looking for govt job for his brother Vishwajeet, sought Kumar's help and said he would pay the amount required for a job in court. Kumar demanded 15 lakhs for securing a job in the High Court and Goswami paid. Kumar asked Goswami to refer more candidates and the latter introduced him to Mukesh Kumar, Rajiv Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Virendra Kumar, and Vikram Kumar, all from Bihar. Kumar took from these people Rs 82 lakh in cash and Rs 10.49 lakh online. Kumar gave the candidates appointment letters and identity cards, which were eventually found to be fake. They asked Kumar to refund the money, but he refused and issued threats. The victims complained at Gomtinagar police station, but no action was taken, following which they filed an application in the court. On order of the court, police registered a case. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Providing justice for juveniles
Recently, the Karnataka High Court delivered a landmark judgment in criminal appeal no. 200093 of 2019, emphasising the crucial role that police and magistrates must play in identifying juvenile offenders at the very inception of a criminal case. It reiterated the need for vigilance when taking cognisance of offences involving juveniles. The court stressed that proper identification could prevent minors from being wrongly imprisoned with adults. Karthik, convicted of murdering Muniyappa, was the second accused in the case, while his father was the primary accused. Evidence established that Muniyappa had eloped with Chaitra, Karthik's sister, without the family's approval. Both Karthik and his father held a grudge against Muniyappa, and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed their involvement in the crime. When the matter reached the High Court on appeal, the issue of juvenility was raised. Under established legal principles, a plea of juvenility can be introduced at any stage of the proceedings — even after the trial has concluded. Juvenility refers to the claim that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed, in which case the individual should be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act). In this case, the offence occurred in 2011, when the JJ Act, 2000, was in force. Though the application asserting juvenility was filed in 2023, the High Court clarified that as per Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, the law applicable at the time of the offence must prevail. The court firmly stated that if the police or magistrate had paid closer attention at the time of arrest and trial, Karthik could have been identified as a juvenile and placed under the juvenile justice system. Instead, he spent 13 years in an adult prison — a grave miscarriage of justice. The JJ Act mandates that minors must be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Unfortunately, in numerous cases, juveniles are incorrectly treated as adults and placed in jails, where they are exposed to physical violence, sexual abuse, and are at risk of becoming hardened criminals. Acknowledging the violation of Karthik's rights, the court awarded him compensation of ₹50,000 for having spent 13 years in jail. Had he been produced before the JJB, he would have served a maximum of three years in a juvenile home. In a precedent-setting move, the court ordered the Additional Registrar General, who holds the rank of a Sessions Judge, to conduct the inquiry into Karthik's juvenility claim. This ensured the matter was handled swiftly and with due judicial authority. The court also directed that the judgment be submitted to the JJ High Court Committee, reinforcing the need for systemic awareness and reform. Newly appointed members and chairpersons of the JJBs must now be sensitised to the updated Karnataka Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2025. Additionally, police officials, advocates, magistrates, and judges of children's courts must be thoroughly informed about the 2025 rules. Too often, juveniles are treated as adults, despite their own pleas that they are underage. In many instances, magistrates deny them bail, and the psychological trauma of being placed in an adult jail can have long-lasting impacts. There have also been cases where juveniles arrested along with adult offenders are treated as adults and placed behind bars instead of observation homes meant for juveniles. In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court accepted a plea of juvenility raised 32 years after the alleged offence. In another judgment in criminal appeal No. 347 of 2018, the Supreme Court emphasised that a cautionary approach must be adopted when a plea of juvenility is raised. In this case, the appellant relied on a transfer certificate to support the claim of juvenility. However, the court reiterated that the determination of age must be based on the documents specified under the JJ Act. Since other official records indicated that the individual was not a minor at the time of the offence, the court rejected the plea of juvenility. The aim of the JJ Act is to provide a rehabilitative and reformative environment, allowing juveniles to reintegrate into society. This core purpose is undermined when minors are sent to adult prisons. Names have been changed to protect identity. Geeta Sajjanshetty is an Advocate at the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, and former Juvenile Justice Board Member, Kalaburagi
