The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has ruled that Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act serves the legitimate purpose of protecting the interests of a newly formed family and does not violate constitutional equality guarantees. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, a will executed before marriage is automatically revoked once the testator marries, unless it falls within the statutory exceptions.
The High Court held that Section 69 does not violate Articles 14 or 15 of the Constitution merely because a similar rule does not apply to Hindus. The Bench found that the exclusion of Hindus from the provision has a historical legislative basis and stems from differences in the development of personal and succession laws.
The provision is intended to ensure that a pre-marriage will does not inadvertently defeat the interests of a spouse and family that come into existence after marriage. Thus, the High Court clarified that Section 69 merely revokes an earlier testamentary instrument and does not confer any proprietary right on the spouse.
Also read SC Upholds War Injury Pension for Soldier Posted at Kargil During Operation Rakshak
Briefly, the issue arose from a property dispute pending before the Sub Court, Punalur, where the validity of Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was questioned. The provision states that a will made by a person is automatically revoked upon his or her marriage. The trial court referred the constitutional questions to the Kerala High Court, leading to a suo motu civil reference.
Simultaneously, a writ petition filed by Roy Philip also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 69. The principal challenge was that the provision applies to Christians, Parsis and Jews, while Hindus are exempt, making it discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar undertook a detailed historical examination of succession and testamentary law in India and found that the rule revoking a will upon marriage was borrowed from English law. The original legislative purpose behind the provision was to protect the interests of a newly formed family because marriage creates new obligations and responsibilities for a testator.
The Court observed that when the Hindu Wills Act, 1870 was enacted, the legislature consciously excluded Hindus from the operation of the revocation-by-marriage rule because polygamy was then prevalent among Hindus. The legislature considered that a subsequent marriage would not necessarily bring about such a change in circumstances as to justify presuming revocation of an earlier will.
The Bench further noted that even after the introduction of monogamy through the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a significant difference continues to exist. Hindu law grants a wife a legally enforceable right of maintenance and treats her interest in the husband’s property as a pre-existing right. In contrast, no corresponding personal law protection exists for Christians. Therefore, the legislative objective of protecting a new spouse and family through Section 69 still retains a rational basis.
The Court also emphasised that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. Merely because a beneficial provision has not been extended to all communities does not automatically make it unconstitutional. Courts ordinarily do not strike down laws solely on the ground of ‘under-inclusion’ where the legislature chooses to address a specific mischief affecting a particular class.
