Registered adoption deeds and service nominations outweigh uncorroborated claims of prior marriage in succession proceedings.

The Petitioner, Keshkali Shukla, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act seeking a succession certificate following the death of Harikishore Shukla, a government librarian, on 09.06.2020

She claimed to be his legally wedded wife, married in 1980

Respondent No. 1 (Sushma) contested this, asserting she was the legally wedded wife (married in 1989) and Respondent No. 2 was their adopted daughter

The Petitioner contended that any subsequent marriage or adoption without her consent was void under the Hindu Marriage Act

The Trial Court granted the certificate to the Petitioner

However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, rejecting the Petitioner's claim and granting the certificate to the Respondents

The Petitioner challenged this reversal via the present civil revision, arguing that the Appellate Court erroneously treated a child marriage as void ab initio

1. Whether a Hindu marriage performed during the minority of the parties is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act

2. Whether the Petitioner successfully established her status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased through credible evidence

3. Whether the nomination in the service records and a registered adoption deed are sufficient to grant a succession certificate to the Respondents

The court primarily applied Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act regarding the issuance of succession certificates

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage involving minors is not automatically void ab initio, though it may attract penalties under child marriage restraint laws

Furthermore, the court relied on the evidentiary value of service book nominations and Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act regarding the presumption of validity for registered adoption deeds

The High Court observed that while the Appellate Court may have misstated the law regarding the voidness of minor marriages, its decision was ultimately based on a failure of proof by the Petitioner

The Petitioner’s claim of marrying at age 11 to a 15-year-old groom in 1980 was viewed with "greater circumspection"

The court found the Petitioner's documents (Ration Card, Voter List, and family certificates) to be either post-death fabrications or containing false assertions regarding the deceased's occupation

Conversely, the Respondents produced a service book nomination signed by the deceased naming Respondent No. 1 as his wife, an LIC policy naming her as nominee, and a 1996 registered adoption deed—executed long before the dispute—which identified the deceased and Respondent No. 1 as husband and wife

The court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on photographs, noting that the individuals pictured appeared to be middle-aged adults rather than the minors the Petitioner claimed they were at the time of the alleged marriage

The court clarified that while a child marriage is not void ab initio, the Petitioner’s version of events was factually unsupported and lacked credibility

The revision was dismissed, and the Appellate Court’s order granting the succession certificate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was upheld