'Marriage Can't Be Declared Void At Instance Of In-Laws': Allahabad HC Recognises Soldier's Widow

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected an appeal by the parents of a deceased army soldier to a family court order recognising his widow, holding that a marriage cannot be assailed as void at the instance

of in-laws.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the family court dated April 28, 2025, which held that Sadhna Devi was married to the deceased soldier on May 12, 2007, several months before he was killed in an encounter with terrorists on January 14, 2008. Challenging that finding, the parents contended that no marriage had taken place on that date and that only an engagement ceremony had been performed, with the marriage fixed for April 24, 2008.

Hearing the matter, a division bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh examined the record of earlier proceedings, including multiple rounds of litigation initiated by the deceased soldier’s mother before the Gujarat High Court soon after her son’s death. The bench noted that in the first such petition, the mother had expressly stated that her son married the respondent on May 12, 2007, though she claimed the marriage was never consummated. That petition was summarily rejected in March 2009.

The court also took note of the fact that the respondent subsequently received posthumous honours as the widow of the deceased at an investiture ceremony held at Rashtrapati Bhawan in April 2009. Although a later petition before the Gujarat High Court resulted in directions to authorities to distribute certain service benefits to other relatives, the Allahabad High Court observed that those proceedings were based on departmental inquiries and could not determine civil rights arising out of marital status.

Turning to the family court proceedings, the bench noted that the family court relied on marriage invitation cards produced by the widow, including one bearing the handwriting of the deceased’s father, as well as oral testimony of witnesses who stated that the marriage ceremony took place on May 12, 2007, at Azamgarh.

The High Court rejected the in-laws’ argument that the absence of a “vidai” ceremony disproved the marriage, holding that the performance or non-performance of post-marriage rituals could not negate evidence of solemnisation. It also found no material to support the claim that the marriage was scheduled for a later date, observing that the alleged April 2008 date appeared to be an afterthought.

A key argument raised by the deceased soldier’s parents at the appellate stage was that the widow was under 18 years of age at the time of marriage, rendering the marriage void. The bench declined to entertain this plea, noting that it had not been raised in the written statement before the family court and no issue had been framed or pressed during trial.

On law, the court held that contravention of the age requirement under the Hindu Marriage Act does not render a marriage void, and, in any event, a challenge on that ground can be raised only by a spouse, not by in-laws.

The court also rejected the contention that the family court lacked jurisdiction, holding that a suit seeking a declaration of marital status squarely falls within the jurisdiction conferred by the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the family court’s appreciation of evidence or application of law, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the declaration recognising the respondent as the widow of the deceased soldier.