Skip to content


Sespuri Vs. Dwarka Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.222
AppellantSespuri
RespondentDwarka Prasad
Cases ReferredPadam Kumari v. Surai Kumari
Excerpt:
hindu law - marriage between a thakur and a brahman woman, whether illegal--issue born of such marriage, whether legitimate--nihang goshain--custom as to marriage. - - the present case is a very much stronger one, because even those ancient writers who have hesitated altogether to condemn a marriage between a man of higher caste and a woman of lower caste, have been clear in their condemnation of such a union as the present, where the position is reversed. i fail to see, therefore, how the fact that the plaintiff's father and mother violated one rule, which was binding upon them as members of a religious order, can excuse or validate their union in defiance of a general principle of hindu law......question in issue in this case is whether the plaintiff, sespuri, is the legitimate son of one sidha. sidha was a thakur by caste and he contracted a union with a wdman of the brahman caste, from which the plaintiff sespuri is alleged to have been born. such union is prima facie forbidden by the hindu law. it can-not amount to a legal marriage, and its offspring cannot be said to be legitimate issue. in the case of padam kumari v. surai kumari 18 a. 458 : a.w.n. (1906) 83 : 3 a.l.j. 209 a bench of this court held that a marriage between a man of the brahman caste and a woman, who was a chhattrior rajput by caste, is not lawful in these provinces and the issue of such marriage is not legitimate. the present case is a very much stronger one, because even those ancient writers who have.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. The only question in issue in this case is whether the plaintiff, Sespuri, is the legitimate son of one Sidha. Sidha was a Thakur by caste and he contracted a union with a wdman of the Brahman caste, from which the plaintiff Sespuri is alleged to have been born. Such union is prima facie forbidden by the Hindu Law. It can-not amount to a legal marriage, and its offspring cannot be said to be legitimate issue. In the case of Padam Kumari v. Surai Kumari 18 A. 458 : A.W.N. (1906) 83 : 3 A.L.J. 209 a Bench of this Court held that a marriage between a man of the Brahman caste and a woman, who was a Chhattrior Rajput by caste, is not lawful in these Provinces and the issue of such marriage is not legitimate. The present case is a very much stronger one, because even those ancient writers who have hesitated altogether to condemn a marriage between a man of higher caste and a woman of lower caste, have been clear in their condemnation of such a union as the present, where the position is reversed. It is contended, however, that there is one circumstance which takes the present case outside of the ordinary rule. The plaintiff's father Sidha had joined a religious order. He had become a Nihang Goshain, and the plaintiff's mother also had joined that order before their union. This might possibly help the plaintiff if he could prove a valid custom binding upon all Nihang Goshains, which recognises as lawful a marriage between any man and any woman belonging to that order whatever their previous position in the world might be. The direct contrary is the case. The Nihang Goshaim are a celibate order, who are not supposed to marry at all. I fail to see, therefore, how the fact that the plaintiff's father and mother violated one rule, which was binding upon them as members of a religious order, can excuse or validate their union in defiance of a general principle of Hindu Law. I concur in the finding of the lower Appellate Court against the legitimacy of the plaintiff and dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //