GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FAMILY LAW II

Continuous Evaluation Assignment – 20 Marks

M/S MARY ROY V. STATE OF KERALA : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. (DR.) SUSHIL GOSWAMI

Professor of Law

SUBMITTED BY -

LODHI VISHAL - 19B093

KASHVI VACHHANI – 19B172

Semester VI, Year III

(Batch 2019-24)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank everyone who has been instrumental in the preparation of this project. We would like
to specifically thank Dr. Sushil Goswami, Professor of Law for providing us with an opportunity
to. prepare this project. This project making process has been an enriching experience and we are
grateful for this learning process which has provided us with a great learning opportunity, as
students of Family Law.

2
 INDEX

SR.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO

1. Abstract 4

2. Brief Facts of the Case 5

3. Issues before the court 6

4. Contentions of the 6
parties
5 Relevant Provisions 7

6 Judgement in brief 7

7 Commentary 8
8 Important cases 9
referred

3
 M/s Mary Roy v. State of Kerala
1986 SC 1011
________________________________________________________

1. ABSTRACT

The current suit is a landmark judgement which secured rights of Christian women (residing in
Kerala) in their fathers estate. Till the passing of this revolutionary judgement, property rights of
Christian women in Kerala were covered under Travancore-Kochi Act of 1916 which allowed
Christian women to only inherit 1/4th share of the sons (the equivalent male descendants) in her
father’s estate. Through this analysis, the authors will discuss the facts of the case, the contentions
of the parties, the judgement and our commentary on the judgement.

2. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Citation : 1986 SC 1011

Jurisdiction : Supreme Court of India

Case Filed on : 1983

Case Decided on : 2009

Judges : Chief Justice Bhagwati and Justice Pathak.

: Article 14 of The Constitution of India, Sections 24, 28, and

Legal Provisions involved 29 of the Travancore Christian Act, 1092 and Part B State
Laws (Act) of 1951.
: Kashvi Vachhani and Vishal Lodhi, Gujarat National Law
Case Summary Prepared by
University.

4
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

PARTIES TO THE SUIT

Plaintiff: Mary Roy Defendant: State of Kerala

• Mary Roy was a widow in the as per the facts given, and her husband had gone to his heavenly
home. Mrs. Mary's family members bullied, harassed, and ridiculed her. This was done in order
for her to leave their father's property. Mrs. Mary's brothers were determined to get their hands
on the land by any means necessary. They even hired some goons who threatened to use severe
and physical action against her if she did not leave the premises.
• Mrs. Mary Roy, on the other hand, was a strong woman who openly refused to do so, despite
the fact that she had nowhere else to go. Her brothers, on the other hand, were insistent that
she had to leave because they claimed the property was theirs under the Travancore Succession
Act of 1916, and that she was staying and claiming it as hers illegally.
• Mary Roy believed her fundamental right to equality was being violated, so she took the case
to court to have it restored. Travancore was previously controlled by the Travancore
Succession Act of 1916, which was the genesis of the dispute, as stated in the introduction.
This statute implied that no law existed prior to 1916 that permitted the succession of
Christians residing in the area. This law did not recognize successors' coparcenary rights to the
property; it only recognized property acquired through inheritance. A widowed mother would
receive only a life interest in the land under Section 24 of the Act, and the daughters who had
previously been allocated Stridhan would not be entitled to it.
• Mrs. Mary filed a case against her brother George Isaac in order to get equal succession rights,
but the lower court dismissed her plea. She then appealed to the Kerala high court, arguing
that the lower court's judgment was incorrect. Her appeal to the Kerala High Court was
successful. After 8 years of fighting, her execution petition was granted, and she was awarded
possession of the property despite winning the lawsuit. She then moved into her father's
cottage, but her brothers proceeded to bother her in the same way as before.
• Mrs. Mary then decided to take her case to India's Supreme Court to continue her fight against
her brothers. She challenged a provision of the Travancore succession law, adopted in 1916.
Mary Roy filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India, invoking constitutional remedies
under Article 32 of the Indian constitution.

5
3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

The Honourable Supreme Court of India was presented with multiple questions to evaluate :
- Whether the relevant provisions of the Travancore Christian act of 1926 were violative of
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether The Travancore Christian act of 1916 persists to regulate the intestate succession of
individual’s property belonging to the Christian community ( in India) following the passage
of Part B state laws 1951 in regions that were initially in the state of Travancore or whether
the same is being regulated Indian Succession Act, 1925?
- If it is still regulated by Travancore Christian Act of 1916, is it ultra vires the Indian
Constitution?
- Whether the Kerala High Court's decision would be enforced retroactively if it was reasonable?

4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff

• The petitioners primarily argued that these laws discriminated against women by stating, for
example, that a widow or mother who becomes liable under sections 16,17,21, and 22 will only
have a life interest in the intestate's immovable property, which will terminate upon death or
remarriage.
• They further claimed that a daughter does not have the right to inherit the deceased's property
in the same proportion as the son, which goes against the Indian Constitution's fundamental
rights provisions.
• The petitioners further submitted that they will only be entitled to 1/4th the value of the son
or Rs 5000 or whatever is less and sometimes even this amount is not entitled to her. Adding
that it is inherently violative of Article 14 of the Indian constitution.
• Lastly, the petitioners argued that if Mary had been a man, she would have been permitted to
inherit her deceased father's property which shows the lacuna in the statute in force.

6
Defendant

• The respondents primarily argued before the Court that the statute was developed in the past,
and that repealing it would be a blow to many people's traditions and norms.
• The respondents went on to say that the laws enacted in the past are significant as a legacy,
and that there isn't much that can be done about it. They further said that they could not be
held responsible because the laws were developed and added in the past.
• In their concluding arguments, the respondents criticized the petitioners as they felt that Mary
was ‘breaking the mound’ and was on the way of becoming too ‘independent and modern’.
They believed she was purposefully challenging the society's traditional nature.

5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED

- Article 14 of Constitution of India which provides for Right to Equality.

- 24, 28, and 29 of the Travancore Christian Act, 1092.

- Part B State Laws (Act) of 1951

6. JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF

- The Apex Court re-established the assertion that no personal laws can take precedence over
the constitution of the country. Any conduct in accordance with these laws which nullifies the
significance and primacy of the constitution will be automatically be held illegal.

- The court decided that the Travancore Succession legislation from 1902 was unenforceable
since it had been repealed by the Part-B States (Laws) Act of 1951.

- The court contended that the Travancore Christian Act of 1916 has to be revoked. In its place,
Chapter II of Part V of Indian Succession Act, 1925 will be applied. Hence, the intestate
succession of property of Christian people residing in the regions of Travancore, previously

7
 governed by the Travancore Christian Act 1916, would now be regulated and governed by the
Indian Succession Act, 1925.

- The court held the relevant provisions of the Travancore Christian Act, 1916 were violative of
the notion of Right to equality provided under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution on account
of its discriminatory nature towards women.

- The court decided that a widowed mother would be entitled to 1/3rd of her husband’s property
who died intestate. In the particular case, Mrs. Mary will get 1/3rd of the property and her
brother will receive an equal amount of the property.

- The ruling passed by the Kerala High Court that restored her share in the estate will be applied
retrospectively.

- The court ruled that if a man died without the formation of a will, without leaving any children
or his wife behind, the property will be acquired by his father, and in the absence of thereof,
it will be equally divided between mother, brother and the sister.

7. COMMENTARY

It is an arduous deal to analyse this decision. This can be attributed to the fact that the TSCA
(Travancore Christian act of 1916) was quashed on the premise of the applicability of Part B State
laws and not on the conundrum of its constitutional invalidity, which, worth noting, was the main
contention of the appellants. It is indisputable that the decision did a lot for Christian women who
were governed under the TSCA but the question remains, can it be established as an adequate
precedent for property rights of women in the backdrop of this patriarchal society? Can it be
called as much of a victory of women as it appears to be? The suit got resolved on the basis of
technicality and not on the touchstone of gender equality.

The quorum was aware of the obstacles that the retrospective applicability of the decision would
pose. Despite this, they decided to go ahead with this premise rather than the fundamental rights
of women because the former one would cause less of an uproar than the later one.

8
There was a fear of the status quo becoming volatile and a substantial backlash from the
community. It is also unjustifiable because it doesn’t provide equality on a de facto basis which
was the premise of all the arguments of the claimant. The TSCA should’ve been quashed on the
premise of its unconstitutionality for there to adherence to the principle of inequality.

The authors are in consonance of the quashing down of the orthodox legislation of Travancore
Christian Act, 1916, however, it is our opinion that it doesn’t do much for women appealing to
mandate de facto equality.

8. IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED

• Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
and Anr. etc. (1986) 3 SCC 156.
• Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Anr. 1991 Supp (1) SCC
600; Assistant Excise Commissioner and Ors. v. Issac Peter and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 104.
• Har Prasad Choubey v. Union of India:(1973) 2 SCC 746.
• Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (1954) SCR 310.
• Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh (1971) 2 SCC 288.