# Rajdhari & Anr v. Sadhna Devi

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-28
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 493 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajdhari-anr-v-sadhna-devi-52780
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Pawan Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar,
Saurabh Kumar Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Family Court was
justified in declaring the respondent to be the
legally wedded wife and widow of the deceased
soldier, on the basis of the evidence on record,
and whether such declaration suffers from any
error
of
law,
jurisdiction,
or
perversity
warranting appellate interference.

Headnotes
Family Courts Act, 1984 - s.4 - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 11 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - O. 14 R. 3, O.7 R. 11, O.
6 R. 17 - The appellants, residents of
Gujarat, being the parents of a deceased
Army personnel who died in the line of
duty on 14 January 2008, challenged the
judgment of the Family Court declaring
the respondent as the legally wedded wife
and widow of the deceased, contending
that no valid marriage had taken place
and
that
only
an
engagement
was
solemnised on 12 May 2007, with the
marriage allegedly fixed for a later date -
The respondent (wife) asserted that the
marriage was duly solemnised on 12 May
2007 at her parental home and relied
upon documentary and oral evidence to
substantiate her marital status - Prior
proceedings before the Gujarat High Court
concerning service benefits and honours
had yielded conflicting outcomes, while
the respondent subsequently instituted
11 All. Rajdhari & Anr. Vs. Sadhna Devi
293
matrimonial
proceedings
before
the
Family Court seeking a declaration of
marital status - After a full-fledged trial,
the Family Court held in favour of the
respondent, whereupon the appellants
preferred the instant first appeal before
the High Court, questioning the validity of
the marriage, the jurisdiction of the
Family Court, and the correctness of the
findings recorded against them.

Held: An acquaintance of respondent with the
deceased was very brief, as mainly at the time
of her marriage taken place at her paternal
home
in
Azamgarh,
Uttar
Pradesh
-
Documentary evidence includes fact of leave
taken by appellant no. 1 from his employer, the
Railways, to be present for the occasion taken
place on 12th May, 2007 at Azamgarh - The
deceased soon thereafter left for his place of
work - Hence, contention of appellants that the
marriage was not consummated - During period
12th May, 2007 till 14th January, 2008 there is
nothing on record to find that the husband had
a grievance or such a contention against
respondent - Appellants say they discovered
from
documents
tendered
at
trial
that
respondent
was
underage,
rendering
the
marriage void - No application was made by
appellants for framing of additional issue - On
going through the lower Court record it is
revealed, inter alia, there is an identity card
identifying respondent as widow/war widow of
ex-service men and giving her date of birth as
20th July, 1989 - Taking the date for reckoning
her age at the time of marriage on 12th May,
2007, it puts her two months short of 18 years -
Sub-clause (iii) under section 5, providing for
conditions for a Hindu marriage requires, inter
alia, the bride to be age of 18 years at the time
of marriage, increased from 15 years by
amendment, w.e.f., 1st October, 1978
-
Appellants are parents of the deceased husband
- Appellants are presumed to have been advised
that they applying for framing additional issue
would not yield result - Hence, belated
contention at the appellate stage - It is without
substance and cannot be acted upon - It is
possible that appellant no. 2 filed a second
application
seeking
death
benefits
and
posthumous honours of the deceased, which
had been conferred upon the respondent,
however, the Gujarat High Court's observation
that the authorities were not satisfied, upon a
second inquiry, with the respondent's claim of
marriage must be read in light of its subsequent
review order, which took note of the disputed
facts and conferment of such honours upon the
respondent at the investiture ceremony held at
Rashtrapati Bhavan on 19 April 2009 [Paras 7,
13

## Text

292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case also, in which the accident occurred
on 03.07.1999, the claimants are entitled to
get enhanced compensation in accordance
with Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1998 of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith
interest under Rule 220-A of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 at the rate of
7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition, till its actual payment.

12. The claimants are also entitled to
get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.10,000/-
each
towards
loss
of
consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses, a total of Rs.35,000/- towards
non pecuniary compensation.

13. In this way, the claimants are
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
Rs.5,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till it's actual payment, which is to
be indemnified by the insurer of the
offending offending Auto No.UP-73-A0171.

14. The cross objection is allowed.
The award of the Tribunal is modified to
the above extent.

15. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants keeping in view their age and
dependency.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 292
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal No. 493 of 2025

Rajdhari & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sadhna Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vinod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pawan Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar,
Saurabh Kumar Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Family Court was
justified in declaring the respondent to be the
legally wedded wife and widow of the deceased
soldier, on the basis of the evidence on record,
and whether such declaration suffers from any
error
of
law,
jurisdiction,
or
perversity
warranting appellate interference.

Headnotes
Family Courts Act, 1984 - s.4 - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 11 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - O. 14 R. 3, O.7 R. 11, O.
6 R. 17 - The appellants, residents of
Gujarat, being the parents of a deceased
Army personnel who died in the line of
duty on 14 January 2008, challenged the
judgment of the Family Court declaring
the respondent as the legally wedded wife
and widow of the deceased, contending
that no valid marriage had taken place
and
that
only
an
engagement
was
solemnised on 12 May 2007, with the
marriage allegedly fixed for a later date -
The respondent (wife) asserted that the
marriage was duly solemnised on 12 May
2007 at her parental home and relied
upon documentary and oral evidence to
substantiate her marital status - Prior
proceedings before the Gujarat High Court
concerning service benefits and honours
had yielded conflicting outcomes, while
the respondent subsequently instituted
11 All. Rajdhari & Anr. Vs. Sadhna Devi
293
matrimonial
proceedings
before
the
Family Court seeking a declaration of
marital status - After a full-fledged trial,
the Family Court held in favour of the
respondent, whereupon the appellants
preferred the instant first appeal before
the High Court, questioning the validity of
the marriage, the jurisdiction of the
Family Court, and the correctness of the
findings recorded against them.

Held: An acquaintance of respondent with the
deceased was very brief, as mainly at the time
of her marriage taken place at her paternal
home
in
Azamgarh,
Uttar
Pradesh
-
Documentary evidence includes fact of leave
taken by appellant no. 1 from his employer, the
Railways, to be present for the occasion taken
place on 12th May, 2007 at Azamgarh - The
deceased soon thereafter left for his place of
work - Hence, contention of appellants that the
marriage was not consummated - During period
12th May, 2007 till 14th January, 2008 there is
nothing on record to find that the husband had
a grievance or such a contention against
respondent - Appellants say they discovered
from
documents
tendered
at
trial
that
respondent
was
underage,
rendering
the
marriage void - No application was made by
appellants for framing of additional issue - On
going through the lower Court record it is
revealed, inter alia, there is an identity card
identifying respondent as widow/war widow of
ex-service men and giving her date of birth as
20th July, 1989 - Taking the date for reckoning
her age at the time of marriage on 12th May,
2007, it puts her two months short of 18 years -
Sub-clause (iii) under section 5, providing for
conditions for a Hindu marriage requires, inter
alia, the bride to be age of 18 years at the time
of marriage, increased from 15 years by
amendment, w.e.f., 1st October, 1978
-
Appellants are parents of the deceased husband
- Appellants are presumed to have been advised
that they applying for framing additional issue
would not yield result - Hence, belated
contention at the appellate stage - It is without
substance and cannot be acted upon - It is
possible that appellant no. 2 filed a second
application
seeking
death
benefits
and
posthumous honours of the deceased, which
had been conferred upon the respondent,
however, the Gujarat High Court's observation
that the authorities were not satisfied, upon a
second inquiry, with the respondent's claim of
marriage must be read in light of its subsequent
review order, which took note of the disputed
facts and conferment of such honours upon the
respondent at the investiture ceremony held at
Rashtrapati Bhavan on 19 April 2009 [Paras 7,
13, 14] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
R. Kasthuri and Ors. v. M. Kasthuri and Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2018, Judgment
dated
16th
January,
2018
-
distinguished

List of Acts
Family Courts Act, 1984, Hindu Marriage Act,
1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords
First Appeal; Legally wedded wife; Widow;
Solemnised;
Consummated;
Maintainable;
Jurisdiction; Doctrine of estoppels; Undervalued;
Court fees; O. VII R. 11; Issues framed; Oral
evidence; Documentary evidence; Examinationin-chief;
Cross-examination;
Admission;
Appellate interference; Perversity; Declaration of
marital status; Conditions of marriage; Void
marriage; Voidable marriage; Framing of issues;
Burden of proof; Appreciation of evidence;
Findings of fact; Belated contention; Honours
posthumously; Appeal dismissed.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
493 of 2025

From Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2025
passed in Original Suit No. 565 of 2010

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
Vinod Kumar pandey

Advs. for the Respondent:
Pawankumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar, Saurabh
Kumar Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. Appellants lost their son, who died
in the line of duty while serving in the
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
army.
Respondent
obtained
impugned
judgment dated 28th April 2025 from the
Family Court, inter-alia, declaring her to be
the widow. In context of above, the
marriage was said to have been solemnized
on 12th May, 2007 and the son died on
14th January, 2008, of gun shot in
encounter
with
terrorists.
A
further
allegation is that only engagement took
place on 12th May, 2007 as opposed to
marriage and the latter was to have taken
place on 24th April, 2008.

2. The appeal was presented in time
and admitted on 18th July, 2025. Since
respondent had been served on caveat
lodged, it was discharged and formal notice
of appeal, waived. Mr. Vinod Kumar
Pandey, learned advocate appearing on
behalf
of
appellants
files
English
translation of impugned judgment. Mr.
Saurabh Pandey, learned advocate appears
on behalf of respondent.

3. We have heard learned advocates
for the parties and perused impugned
judgment. It appears to us, appellant no. 2
(mother of the deceased) had first made
Special Civil Application no. 2163 of 2009
in the High Court of Gujarat. In paragraph
6 she had not disputed that her son married
respondent on 12th May, 2007. Her
contention was, the marriage was never
consummated. Part of paragraph 6 in the
application is reproduced below.

"6. It is not in dispute that the
son of the petitioner married Sadhnadevi
on 12th May, 07 but the marriage has
never consummated as according to the
custom and usage the marriages are
generally consummated after a period of 1
to 3 years of marriage and that too after
performing the religious function. Though
the marriage did take place on 12th May,
07, it was never consummated and the
bridegroom never came at the residence of
the petitioner. It is also required to be
mentioned that the petitioner and her
husband
has
performed
last
ritual
ceremony of her son Shri Arve Shanker
Yadav and in the last ceremony also Smt.
Sadhnadevi never appeared to perform the
rituals ceremony as the marriage was
never consummated. The petitioner's son
Shri Arve Shanker was borne on 2-3-1983
at Mehsana in Gujarat and marriage took
place on 12th May, 07 and she never came
at the residence of the petitioner and she
never met even her late husband Shri Arve
Shanker Yadav.
.........."

(emphasis supplied)

Said High Court disposed of the
application on order dated 12th March,
2009 through a Division Bench. A
paragraph from the order is reproduced
below.

"It is the claim of the petitioner
that the marriage of the deceased to the
respondent no.3 was not yet consummated.
Besides, she being very young, the
respondent no.3 will soon get remarried.
Being the mother of the deceased and the
nominee
in
his
service
record,
the
petitioner is entitled to receive 'Shaurya
Chakra' and to the terminal benefits.

We see no substance in the claim
made by the petitioner. Petition is
summarily rejected."

(emphasis supplied)

4. Subsequent to rejection of the first
application there was investiture ceremony
held in Rashtrapati Bhawan at New Delhi
on 19th April, 2009, wherein, amongst
11 All. Rajdhari & Anr. Vs. Sadhna Devi
295
others, respondent received from The
President of India the posthumous award,
as widow of the deceased. Appellant no. 2
filed another Special Civil Application no.
9697 of 2009 in the High Court of Gujarat.
The application is not in the record but
there is illumination from order dated 22nd
February, 2010 of a different Division
Bench, disposing of it. As such, it is
necessary for us to reproduce below the
entire order.

"The present petition is filed by
the mother of the deceased Employee
whose post death reliefs were to be granted
to the family of the deceased. There came a
dispute and respondent No.7 appeared
before the respondent-authorities as widow
of the deceased. In the initial enquiry
which was conducted respondent No.7
was found to be married wife of the
deceased. However, on second enquiry, it
was found that she was not legally
married wife of the deceased. She was
unable to produce any proof of the
marriage. The matter was relegated to the
review
authority.
In
the
review
proceedings, respondent No.7 did not
remain present though she was called. It
has been concluded by the respondents that
she has not been able to prove that she is
entitled to receive the benefits. Therefore, it
was ordered that for whatever rights the
other relatives are entitled to, they be
appropriated accordingly. Even before this
Court, Rule was served on respondent No.
7, but she has not chosen to appear before
this Court. Therefore, this matter is
decided ex parte against her and with the
consent of the parties. In view of the
report of the respondents, it would be
concluded that respondent No. 7 is not
wife of the deceased Sepoy, and therefore
whatever are the post death benefits of the
Sepoy will have to go to other relatives who
are natural successors and claimants in
accordance
with
the
Rules
of
the
Department. In that view of the matter,
respondent-authorities will distribute the
amount in accordance with law prevailing
the situation considering that respondent
No. 7 is not wife of the deceased Sepoy.

The
same
analogy
will
be
applied to the honours conferred upon the
deceased Sepoy.

In the view of the aforesaid
observations and directions petition is
disposed of."

(emphasis supplied)

Respondent filed for review on
delay. The applications for condonation
and review were rejected as meritless on
order dated 7th May, 2010. Here we note
that appellants are residents of Mehsana
in
Gujarat.
They
had
made
their
applications to the High Court of Gujarat.
Respondent's
parental
home
is
in
Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. The said
different Division Bench was of the view
that respondent not having appeared
before the authority and subsequently
also before the Court, could not ask for
trial of the question of fact, for it to be
held by the Court to conclude that she is
legally wedded wife. The Division Bench
said, these are questions of fact which
cannot be gone into at least in the review
application,
which
is
time
barred.
Respondent then petitioned for special
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
There were two petitions. Both were
dismissed summarily on order dated 1st
September, 2010. It is in the mean time
that respondent had filed the matrimonial
case resulting in impugned judgment.

5. The Family Court framed seven
issues. They are reproduced below.
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"12. After hearing both the
parties in the matter, the court has framed
the following issues on 11-10-2011-

1- Whether on the basis of
pleadings in plaint, the plaintiff is the
legally wedded wife/widowed (wife) of the
deceased Arbeyshankar, if yes, then its
effect?

2-
Whether
the
suit
is
maintainable?

3- Whether this court have the
jurisdiction to hear the suit?

4- Whether the suit undervalued
and the court fees paid is insufficient? This
issue has been decided in negative by the
court on 21-03-2025.

5- Whether the suit is barred by
the doctrine of estoppel?

6-
Other
reliefs
which
the
plaintiff is entitled to?

7- Whether the suit is barred by
Order 7 Rule 11??

(emphasis supplied)

The Family Court held exhaustive
trial. There were pleadings filed, as
aforesaid issues framed, both sides laid
evidence and several documents were
tendered
as
exhibits.
There
was
examination of witnesses in full, i.e.
examination-in-chief
by
affidavit
and
cross-examination.
The
Family
Court
having considered the materials before it,
came to answer the main issues in favour of
respondent.

 6.
Having
ourselves
perused
impugned judgment and gone through the
materials on record we find, apart from
admission of appellant no. 2 by her first
pleading before the Gujarat High Court,
there was marriage invitation card printed
by respondent's side. One such marriage
invitation card, tendered as exhibit, bore
hand-writing of appellant no. 1. There was
oral evidence of witnesses on side of
respondent,
positively
asserting
the
marriage as witnessed by them on 12th
May, 2007 and not contradicted in crossexamination. There was also evidence of a
motorcycle
having
been gifted
from
respondent's side to the husband and later
found to be registered in name of the sonin-law
of
appellants
(the
daughter's
husband). Much emphasis was laid on side
of appellants to urge that there was no
'Vidai'. The Family Court found clear
distinction between the marriage held as
solemnized and the rituals of 'Vidai'. There
does not appear to be any positive evidence
to show assertion, let alone corroboration
that there was only engagement ceremony
held on 12th May, 2007. The Family Court
also concluded that the deceased, because
had applied for leave to get married was
required to produce photograph(s). On
perusal of materials on record it does
appear that alleged future date of marriage,
as to have been held on 24th April, 2008,
was after thought and correctly disbelieved
by the Family Court.

7. In the circumstances, we see clearly
that acquaintance of respondent with the
deceased was very brief, as mainly at the
time of her marriage taken place at her
paternal home in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Documentary evidence includes fact of
leave taken by appellant no. 1 from his
employer, the Railways, to be present for
the occasion taken place on 12th May,
2007 at Azamgarh. The deceased soon
thereafter left for his place of work. Hence,
contention of appellants that the marriage
was not consummated. During period 12th
May, 2007 till 14th January, 2008 there is
nothing on record for us to find that the
husband had a grievance or such a
contention against respondent.
11 All. Rajdhari & Anr. Vs. Sadhna Devi
297

8. Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey submits,
disputes between the parties is civil in
nature and the Family Court had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate. He relies on
judgment dated 16th January, 2018 of
the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 432
of 2018 (R. Kasthuri and Ors. vs. M.
Kasthuri and Ors.), paragraph 8 (Indian
Kanoon
print).
Mr.
Saurabh
Pandey
submits, the Supreme Court, in that case,
clearly stated in paragraph 7 that there is no
family dispute between the plaintiffs and
the defendants, to hold that the High Court
erred in taking view that the adjudication
made by the City Civil Court was without
jurisdiction as it ought to have been
adjudicated by the Family Court under
Family Courts Act, 1984. In the context,
paragraphs 6 to 9 (Indian Kanoon print) in
R. Kasthuri (supra) are reproduced below.

"6. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the
Act spell out a special procedure. The other
provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4(4) would
indicate that a major objective behind the
enactment of the Act is to have a
specialized body to preserve and save the
institution of marriage.

7. In the present case, there is no
family dispute between the plaintiffs and
the defendants. The dispute arose after the
demise of Gunaseelan to whom both the
plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 claim
to be married. The other plaintiffs and
defendant No.2 are the children claimed to
be born out of the respective marriages.

8. The above would indicate that
the dispute between the parties is purely a
civil dispute and has no bearing on any
dispute within a family which needs to be
resolved by a special procedure as
provided under the Act. No issue with
regard to the institution of marriage and
the need to preserve the same also arises
in the present case. That apart, the dispute
between the parties can only be resolved on
the basis of evidence to be tendered by the
parties, admissibility of which has to be
adjudged within the four corners of the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. In such a proceeding it would be
clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the
benefit of the services of counsels.

9. Taking into account all that
has been said above we are of the view that
the High Court was not correct in holding
the suit filed by the plaintiffs - appellants
to
be
not
maintainable
in
law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
High Court dated 15th June, 2015 passed
in S.A. No.725 of 2005 and remand the
matter to the High Court for a decision on
merits of the Second Appeal filed by the
defendants."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Section 4 in the Act of 1984
provides for appointment of judges to the
Family Courts. Sub-section (4) says,
endeavour shall be made to ensure such
persons are appointed as provided. There is
no
controversy
between
the
parties
regarding the administration of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad having
had made appointments of the Judicial
Officers as Family Court judges. Section 13
bars a party to a suit or proceeding before a
Family Court from claiming to be entitled,
as of right, to be represented by a legal
practitioner with the proviso that the
Family Court may appoint Amicus Curiae.
In this case both appellants and respondent
had been represented before the Family
Court. Neither of them opposed the other
from having such representation. Though
section 14 empowers the Family Court to
receive as evidence any report, statement,
documents, information or matter as in its
opinion would assist to effectually deal
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the dispute, at trial the Family Court
dealt with the oral and documentary
evidence as per applicable law. Same goes
for the provision in section 15, regarding
record of oral evidence.

10. Having said as we have in last
preceding
paragraph,
we
accept
the
distinction pointed out on behalf of
respondent to be that the Supreme Court
found in R Kasthuri (supra), there was no
family dispute between the plaintiffs and
defendants. Both sides were claiming
property of the deceased, as married to him
(the two wives and their respective
children). It follows, the Supreme Court in
paragraph 8 of the judgment said, no issue
with regard to the institution of marriage
and the need to preserve the same also
arose in that case. In this case, the
controversy is whether respondent had been
married to her husband, since deceased. R
Kasthuri (supra) is not applicable for us to
say that the Family Court did not have
jurisdiction as it was with the civil Court on
a civil dispute. Furthermore, the main
issues are issue nos. 1 to 3. All of them
were decided in favour of respondent. We
ascertained that appellants did not insist on
issue no. 3 being tried as preliminary issue
under order XIV in Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Except for issue no. 4 on
Court fees and valuation decided earlier,
the other issues were dealt with and
answered by impugned judgment. Here we
reproduce below paragraph 17 from the
English translation of impugned judgment.

"17. Disposal of Issue No.-3

The point in question is whether
this court has jurisdiction to hear the case?

In view of this point, no argument
has been presented during the arguments of
both the parties. In the case in question, the
suit has been filed for declaration of
marriage between plaintiff and the opposite
party Arbeyshankar (deceased). Under
Explanation (b) of Section 7 of the Family
Courts
Act,
1984,
the
Court
has
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceeding for declaration of the legality of
a marriage or marital status of a person.

Hence, this issue is also decided
negatively against the defendants."

11. Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey submits
further, respondent was under age when the
marriage was allegedly solemnized on 12th
May, 2007. There ought to have been issue
framed because even the alleged marriage
was void. On query he submits, the fact
was
discovered
from
the
documents
tendered in evidence. He relies on rule 3 in
order XIV. The rule is reproduced below.

"3. Materials from which issues
may be framed.

The Court may frame the issues
from all or any of the following materials-

(a) allegations made on oath by
the parties, or by any persons present on
their behalf, or made by the pleaders of
such parties;

(b) allegations made in the
pleadings or in answers to interrogatories
delivered in the suit;

(c) the contents of documents by
either party. "

(emphasis supplied)

12. Contention of appellants is,
omission by the Family Court to frame
issue
on
validity
of
the
marriage,
particularly because respondent was under
age. This contention was never raised
before the Gujarat High Court nor at trial
before the Family Court. It is necessary for
us to reproduce below sub-rule (1) in rule-1
of order XIV.
11 All. Rajdhari & Anr. Vs. Sadhna Devi
299

"1. Framing of issues.? (1) Issues
arise when a material proposition of fact or
law is affirmed by one party and denied by
the other.

xxx xxx
xxx"

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. Accordingly, there was no issue
framed before going to trial. We are
mindful that there is proviso in rule 17
under order VI enabling framing of issue
even after commencement of trial. The
provision is reproduced below.

"17. Amendment of pleadings.-
The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be
necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between
the parties:

Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial. "
(emphasis supplied)

13. Appellants say they discovered
from documents tendered at trial that
respondent was underage, rendering the
marriage void. No application was made by
appellants for framing of additional issue.
On going through the lower Court record it
is revealed, inter alia, there is an identity
card identifying respondent as widow/war
widow of ex-service men and giving her
date of birth as 20th July, 1989. Taking the
date for reckoning her age at the time of
marriage on 12th May, 2007, it puts her
two months short of 18 years. Sub-clause
(iii) under section 5, providing for
conditions for a Hindu marriage requires,
inter alia, the bride to be age of 18 years at
the time of marriage, increased from 15
years by amendment, w.e.f., 1st October,
1978. Section 11 is reproduced below.

"11.
Void
marriages.-Any
marriage
solemnised
after
the
commencement of this Act shall be null
and void and may, on a petition presented
by either party thereto [against the other
party], be so declared by a decree of nullity
if it contravenes any one of the conditions
specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of
section 5."

(emphasis supplied)

The Legislature consciously omitted to
include clause (iii) under section 5 in the
provision of section 11. Furthermore cause
of action in section 11 is only available to a
spouse in a marriage. Appellants are
parents of the deceased husband. Section
12, providing for voidable marriages, does
not mention clause (iii) in section 5, for
contravention of which a ground can be
urged saying the marriage is voidable and
be anulled by a decree of nullity. In the
premises, appellants are presumed to have
been advised that they applying for framing
additional issue would not yield result.
Hence, this belated contention at the
appellate stage. It is without substance and
cannot be acted upon.

14. It may well have been that
appellant no. 2 had filed second application
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for receiving the death benefits and
honours, posthumously bestowed on
their deceased son and given to
respondent. The Gujarat High Court
finding that the authorities had on
second inquiry not been satisfied with
respondent's claim of having married
the deceased, must be viewed in
context of its subsequent review order,
referring to allegations of fact in issue
and,
the
fact
of
the
honours
posthumously
bestowed,
given
to
respondent in the investiture ceremony
held at Rashtrapati Bhawan on 19th
April, 2009.

15. We appreciate the manner, in
which the Family Court held the trial and
confirm impugned judgment. The appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 300
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 916 of 2025

Smt. Gunjan Agrawal ...Appellant
Versus
Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mayank, Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Himanshu Mishra, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Trial Court was
justified in law in rejecting the plaint under O.
VII R. 11 CPC on the ground that, upon a
meaningful reading of the plaint and the
documents relied upon therein, the suit for
cancellation of registered sale deed and for
consequential relief of permanent injunction was
not
maintainable,
particularly
where
the
admitted case of the plaintiff is non-payment of
a part of sale consideration after execution and
registration of sale deed.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O.VII R. 11
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 92 - The plaintiff
instituted Original Suit No. 837 of 2023
seeking cancellation of a registered sale
deed dated 30.11.2022 executed by her in
favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the
disputed
property
and
a
decree
of
permanent
injunction,
alleging
that
though the sale deed was executed for a
consideration of ₹32.50 lakhs, only a
nominal amount was paid in cash and the
balance consideration was agreed to be
paid through post-dated cheques which
were subsequently dishonoured - It was
further pleaded that possession of the
property continued with the plaintiff,
whereas during the pendency of the suit,
defendant no.2, the husband of the
plaintiff,
claiming
title
through
a
subsequent sale deed dated 01.08.2023
executed
by
defendant
no.1,
was
impleaded as a party and moved an
application under O. VII R. 11 CPC
contending that non-payment of part of
the sale consideration did not invalidate a
completed sale and that the suit was not
maintainable - Trial Court allowed the
application, rejected the plaint by order
dated
28.08.2025,
and
the
plaintiff
thereafter
preferred
the
instant
first
appeal challenging the said rejection.
Held: According to the plaint, the plaintiff
executed a sale deed dated 30.11.2022 in
favour of defendant no.1 for a consideration of
₹32.50 lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in
cash and the balance amount of ₹32.30 lakhs
remains unpaid, consequently, the plaintiff has
instituted the instant suit seeking cancellation of
the said registered sale deed and a decree of
permanent injunction to protect her possession
over the disputed property - The sale deed filed
by the plaintiff records a consideration of ₹32.50
lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in cash at
the time of execution, while the balance amount