The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a lower appellate court ruling that recognised a customary “Chudi” marriage, holding that a marriage performed while a previous spouse is alive is void under Hindu law. The decision came in a long-running family property dispute from Balod district, where the status of a woman’s marriage determined inheritance rights over agricultural land
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to agricultural land measuring about 2.47 hectares in village Dhameli, originally owned by a man who died in December 1987. From his first marriage, he had a daughter, who later became defendant No.1 in the suit.
Read also:- Woman Free to Choose Her Life: Orissa High Court’s Strong Stand Against Forced Marriage
After the death of his first wife, the man allegedly brought a widow from another village as his wife through a customary “Chudi” form of marriage. The widow had two daughters from an earlier relationship, who later became the plaintiffs. They claimed that the man accepted them as his children, raised them, and even arranged their marriages.
After the deaths of both the man and the woman in early 1988, the names of all three women - the daughter from the first marriage and the two plaintiffs - were entered in revenue records. The daughter objected, arguing that the plaintiffs were not legal heirs as their mother was never lawfully married to her father.
This led the plaintiffs to file a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition, and possession of half the property.
Read also:- Child’s Welfare Paramount: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Shift Custody From Father to Mother
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a valid marriage between their mother and the landowner. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision.
The appellate court held that the man had married the widow according to local custom, hosted a community feast, and lived with her until his death. On this basis, it recognised her as a legally wedded wife and granted the plaintiffs equal inheritance rights.
Aggrieved by this reversal, the daughter from the first marriage approached the High Court in a second appeal.
Read also:- Supreme Court Draws Line: NCDRC Decrees Can’t Target Promoters Without Proven Liability
Issues Before the High Court
The High Court was asked to decide a narrow but crucial legal question: whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that the woman was the legally wedded wife of the deceased, despite allegations that her earlier husband was alive at the time of the claimed marriage.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined whether this finding could stand within the limited scope of a second appeal under the Civil Procedure Code.
Court’s Observations
The High Court closely scrutinised the evidence, particularly the testimony of the plaintiffs themselves. A key admission came from the first plaintiff during cross-examination, where she stated that her mother’s first husband was alive at the time of the alleged “Chudi” marriage.
Read also:- Ensure Free Education for Poor Students: Supreme Court Interprets RTE Act
“The admission strikes at the very root of the plaintiffs’ case,” the court observed, noting that no evidence was produced to show divorce or customary dissolution of the earlier marriage.
Referring to Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court reiterated that a Hindu marriage is valid only if neither party has a living spouse at the time. Any marriage in violation of this condition is void from the beginning.
The bench relied on settled Supreme Court law to underline that custom cannot override statutory provisions.
“Mere assertion of a customary practice or long cohabitation cannot convert an otherwise void marriage into a legal one,” the judge noted.
The court also criticised the first appellate court for relying heavily on revenue records. It clarified that revenue entries are administrative in nature and cannot confer legal status or inheritance rights when the marriage itself is invalid in law.
The High Court stressed that the burden of proving a custom lies heavily on the party asserting it. The plaintiffs, the court found, failed to establish that the alleged custom permitted remarriage during the lifetime of a previous spouse.
“The lower appellate court shifted the burden onto the defendant instead of insisting that the plaintiffs prove the existence and validity of the custom,” the judgment said.
Material contradictions in the plaintiffs’ evidence regarding residence, prior marriage, and upbringing further weakened their claim.
Final Decision
Concluding that the first appellate court’s findings were perverse and based on misreading of evidence, the High Court allowed the second appeal.
The court set aside the appellate court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit. As a result, the claim of inheritance through the alleged customary marriage was rejected, and the trial court’s decree stood affirmed.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: X v. Y
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 116 of 2005
Date Pronounced: 13 January 2026
