Family Law

Mary Roy v. State of Kerala

(1986) 2 SCC 209; AIR 1986 SC 1011

Facts

Before 1951, intestate succession among Indian Christians in the former princely State of Travancore was governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092.
That Act treated women unequally:
a widow or mother generally obtained only a limited life interest;
a daughter did not receive a share equal to a son;
she ordinarily received only one-fourth of the value of a son’s share or ₹5,000, whichever was less;
even that amount could be denied where streedhanam had been provided or promised.
Travancore and Cochin merged in 1949.
Parliament later enacted the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951.
This legislation extended several Central enactments, including the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to Travancore-Cochin from 1 April 1951.
Conflicting judicial opinions arose regarding whether:
the Travancore Christian Succession Act continued as a special local law; or
it stood repealed when the Indian Succession Act was extended.
Mary Roy and other petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration concerning the applicable succession law.

Whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act continued to govern Indian Christians after 1 April 1951.
Whether Section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act preserved the old local Act.
Whether intestate succession was thereafter governed by the Indian Succession Act.

The Part B States (Laws) Act extended Central statutes to the newly integrated Part B States.
Section 6 of that legislation repealed corresponding laws previously in force in those territories.
The Indian Succession Act is a consolidating enactment governing:
intestate succession under Part V; and
testamentary succession under Part VI.
Section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act saves certain special laws from the ordinary operation of Part V.
However, a saving provision cannot revive a law that has already been expressly or impliedly repealed by later legislation.
When a Central consolidating statute is extended to a territory and the corresponding local enactment is repealed, the new Central law becomes the governing law.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 29(2) permanently preserved the Travancore statute as a special local law.
That provision could protect only a law that continued legally to exist.
The Part B States (Laws) Act had:
extended the Indian Succession Act to Travancore-Cochin;
simultaneously repealed corresponding local succession legislation.
Once the Travancore Act stood repealed, Section 29(2) could not breathe life back into it.
The legislative purpose was to create greater uniformity by extending Central laws to the former princely States.
Allowing the older discriminatory statute to continue would defeat that statutory scheme.
The Indian Succession Act therefore governed intestate succession among Indian Christians in former Travancore from 1 April 1951.
The result substantially improved Christian women’s inheritance position because daughters and sons became governed by the more equal Central succession provisions.
However, the Supreme Court did not strike down the Travancore provisions directly under Article 14.
Since the matter was resolved through statutory repeal, it found it unnecessary to decide the constitutional challenge to the discriminatory rules.

The Travancore Christian Succession Act stood repealed from 1 April 1951.
Intestate succession among Indian Christians in the former Travancore territories was governed by Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The discriminatory Travancore rules could no longer govern successions opening after the Central law became applicable.
Use this case for: application of the Indian Succession Act to Travancore Christians and the resulting equalisation of daughters’ succession rights.