The bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal of the Chhattisgarh High Court observed that a woman's right to the property of her deceased husband would cease if her remarriage is "strictly proven" as per law. The bench made the observation as it dismissed an appeal related to a property suit filed against Kiya Bai by her dead husband's cousin brother Loknath. Loknath claimed that Kiya Bai had remarried as per local customs. The dispute relates to the sharing of property belonging to Kiya Bai's husband Ghasi, who died in Chhattisgarh's Raigarh in 1942.
"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 said.
"... 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 said.
The property in question in the case originally belonged to Sugriv, who had four sons- Mohan, Abhiram, Goverdhan and Jeeverdhen. Ghasi was the son of Abhiram. Goverdhan's son Loknath filed the case.
Loknath moved the court alleging that Kiya Bai remarried through "chudi", a custom where a man marries a widow by giving her bangles, in 1954-55. He claimed that she and her daughter would have no right over the property which is governed by clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz. Though Kiya Bai died during the suit, she and her daughter in a joint statement had pointed out that the partition of the property took place before Ghasi's demise. After Ghasi's death, they remained in possession of the suit property, and Kiya Bai's name was included in the revenue records by tehsildar (revenue officer) in 1984 in accordance with the law. They also added that Kiya Bai was never married and that the suit must be dismissed.
The High Court noted that there was no evidence to testify that Kiya Bai had remarried or lost her right 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 said.
Previously, a trial court had held Kiya Bai and her daughter not entitled to a share in the property. The first appellate court then reversed it, saying that the property was partitioned before Ghasi's demise. The appellate court further noted that after the Hindu Succession Act-1956 came into force, Kiya Bai became the full owner, and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree.
A second appeal was later filed in the High Court.