The Allahabad High Court independently examined the evidence considered by the Family Court.The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Family Court judgment declaring a woman to be the legally wedded widow of an Army personnel who died in an encounter with terrorists, holding that the evidence on record established that the couple had married on 12.05.2007.A Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh dismissed an appeal filed by the parents of the deceased soldier, who disputed the marriage and contended that only an engagement had taken place on 12.05.2007 and that the marriage was allegedly scheduled for 24.04.2008.The High Court found the later claim inconsistent with the appellants' own earlier pleadings before the Gujarat High Court, where the deceased's mother had expressly admitted that her son had married the respondent on 12.05.2007, while contending only that the marriage had never been consummated.The Bench also rejected a belated argument that the woman was below 18 years of age at the time of marriage, noting that no such plea had been taken in the pleadings or before the Family Court and that the statutory provisions relating to void marriages did not support the appellants' contention.Army Personnel Died In Encounter After MarriageThe deceased, son of the appellants, was serving in the Army when he died on 14.01.2008 from a gunshot wound sustained during an encounter with terrorists. The respondent claimed that she had married him on 12.05.2007 at her parental home in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.The appellants disputed this. Their case was that only an engagement ceremony had taken place on 12.05.2007 and that the actual marriage was to take place on 24 April 2008. Since the soldier died before that alleged date, they contended that the respondent could not claim the status of his widow or the benefits attached to that status.The dispute eventually reached the Family Court, where the respondent instituted proceedings seeking a declaration of her marital status.The Family Court conducted a full trial, framed seven issues, recorded evidence and considered documentary material before ultimately deciding the principal issues in favour of the respondent.The deceased's parents challenged that decision before the High Court.Mother Had Earlier Admitted Marriage Before Gujarat HCThe High Court found the appellants' present stand particularly significant in light of proceedings instituted by the deceased's mother before the Gujarat High Court shortly after his death.In Special Civil Application No. 2163 of 2009, the mother had stated:“It is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner married on 12th May, 07...”She did not dispute that a marriage had taken place on that date. Her contention was instead that the marriage had never been consummated, because according to the custom followed by the parties, consummation would take place one to three years later after a religious ceremony.The Gujarat High Court rejected the claim, observing:“We see no substance in the claim made by the petitioner. Petition is summarily rejected.”The Allahabad High Court treated this earlier admission as significant while assessing the parents' subsequent claim that there had never been a marriage at all.Widow Received Posthumous Award At Rashtrapati BhawanThe dispute did not end with the first Gujarat proceedings.On 19.04.2009, during an investiture ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhawan, the respondent received a posthumous award from the President of India as the widow of the deceased soldier. The deceased's mother subsequently filed another petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the respondent's entitlement to the post-death benefits and honours.In that proceeding, the authorities had conducted an inquiry into the respondent's marital status.The Gujarat High Court recorded that the respondent had initially been found to be the deceased's married wife, but that a subsequent inquiry had reached a contrary conclusion because she had allegedly failed to produce sufficient proof of marriage. The respondent did not appear in the subsequent proceedings.The Gujarat High Court therefore disposed of the matter against her, observing that she was not the wife of the deceased and directing distribution of the post-death benefits among other eligible relatives. Her subsequent review applications were dismissed, and the Supreme Court later dismissed her special leave petitions summarily on 01.09.2010.Meanwhile, the respondent had instituted the matrimonial proceedings that ultimately resulted in the Family Court judgment challenged before the Allahabad High Court.Family Court Found Evidence Proved MarriageThe Allahabad High Court independently examined the evidence considered by the Family Court.The Bench noted that, apart from the deceased's mother's earlier admission before the Gujarat High Court, the respondent had produced a marriage invitation card which had been tendered in evidence.Significantly, one such invitation card contained the handwriting of appellant No. 1, the deceased's father. There was also oral evidence from witnesses who stated that they had witnessed the marriage on 12.05.2007.The High Court noted that their testimony regarding the marriage had not been contradicted in cross-examination. The respondent's side had also produced evidence concerning a motorcycle gifted to the deceased, which was later found registered in the name of the husband of one of the appellants' daughters.The appellants placed considerable reliance on the fact that there had been no 'Vidai' ceremony.The High Court, however, agreed with the Family Court that the factum of solemnization of marriage could not be equated with the subsequent ritual of Vidai.The Bench observed that there was:“no positive evidence to show assertion, let alone corroboration that there was only engagement ceremony held on 12th May, 2007.”Alleged 2008 Marriage Date Found To Be An AfterthoughtThe appellants had asserted that the actual marriage was to take place on 24.04.2008. The High Court found this contention difficult to accept. The deceased had taken leave from his employer, the Railways, to be present for the ceremony at Azamgarh on 12.05.2007. The Court also noted that the deceased had applied for leave to get married and was required to produce photographs in connection with the leave.The documentary material, according to the Bench, supported the occurrence of the marriage on 12.05.2007. The Court therefore agreed with the Family Court that the alleged future date of marriage was an “after thought” and had been correctly disbelieved. The Bench also noted that after the marriage the deceased returned to his place of work and died several months later.There was nothing on record between 12.05.2007 and 14.01.2008 showing that the deceased himself had raised any grievance or dispute concerning the marriage.High Court Rejects Challenge To Family Court's JurisdictionThe appellants also argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in R. Kasthuri v. M. Kasthuri, where the Supreme Court had held that a dispute between competing claimants to the property of a deceased person was a civil dispute rather than a family dispute falling within the special jurisdiction of the Family Court.The Allahabad High Court distinguished that decision. The Bench noted that in R. Kasthuri, there was no dispute concerning the institution of marriage itself and the parties were essentially asserting competing claims over the deceased's property.The present case was materially different because the central question was whether the respondent had been married to the deceased.The Court observed:“In this case, the controversy is whether respondent had been married to her husband, since deceased.”It therefore held that R. Kasthuri did not prevent the Family Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Bench also noted that the Family Court had conducted a full trial, with both sides represented by counsel, evidence led and documents exhibited.The appellants raised another argument before the High Court: that the respondent was allegedly below 18 years of age when the marriage took place and that the marriage was therefore void.The Court noted that an identity card produced during the trial recorded the respondent's date of birth as 20.07.1989. If that date was used, she would have been approximately two months short of 18 on 12.05.2007. However, the High Court found that this contention had never been pleaded before the Family Court.The Bench referred to Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, under which an issue arises only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.The Court observed:“We have not been shown that there was an allegation made in the written statement saying, respondent was under age at the time of solemnization of the marriage.”No application had subsequently been made for framing an additional issue on the alleged minority. The Court also examined Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and noted that Section 11, which deals with void marriages, does not include the age condition under Section 5(iii). The Bench further noted that the statutory remedy under Section 11 was available to a spouse, whereas the appellants were the parents of the deceased. The Court consequently rejected the argument as a belated contention raised at the appellate stage.After examining the pleadings, documentary evidence, witness testimony and the earlier litigation, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the Family Court's conclusion that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased.The Bench also took note of the manner in which the Family Court had conducted the proceedings, observing:“We appreciate the manner, in which the Family Court held the trial and confirm impugned judgment.”The appeal was accordingly dismissed.FIRST APPEAL No. - 493 of 2025Rajdhari And Another v. Sadhna DeviDate of Decision: 28.11.2025Counsel for Appellant(s): Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s): Pawankumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar, Saurabh Kumar Pandey(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)