Kerala High Court upholds law automatically revoking Christians’ wills upon marriage, rejects equality challenge

In O.S. No. 26 of 2016, the Sub Court, Punalur, by order dated 12 February 2025 in I.A. No. 216 of 2017, referred the validity of Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for consideration under Section 113 CPC; the High Court registered the reference as C.R. No. 1 of 2025.

The plaintiff in the suit separately challenged the reference order in O.P.(C) No. 903 of 2026, while W.P.(C) No. 27213 of 2017 also raised a challenge to Section 69.

Whether Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for revocation of a will by the testator’s marriage but does not apply to Hindus, violates Part III of the Constitution.

Whether Section 69 is in direct conflict with Section 20(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Whether the Sub Court’s reference satisfied the requirements of Section 113 and Order XLVI CPC.

Section 69 provides for revocation of a will by marriage; under Section 57 and Schedule III, it does not apply to Hindus, and Section 70 is correspondingly modified for them.

Article 14 permits reasonable classification where it rests on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the legislative object; a law’s under-inclusion does not, by itself, make it unconstitutional.

Article 15 prohibits discrimination on specified grounds, including religion, but the Court relied on John Vallamattom v. Union of India to hold that the provision did not attract Article 15 in the circumstances.

Section 20(1) provides that marriage does not itself confer an interest in one spouse’s property or disable either spouse from dealing with their own property.

The Court traced the distinction between Hindus and other communities to the legislative history of the Hindu Wills Act, 1870, which excluded revocation by marriage against the then-prevailing social and legal background.

It held that the distinction remained constitutionally sustainable: the object of Section 69 is to protect a new family, while Hindu law separately recognises a wife’s maintenance rights, including under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court further concluded that Section 69 does not create a property interest in favour of the new spouse or prevent the testator from disposing of property; it only revokes a prior will upon marriage. It therefore found no conflict with Section 20(1).

The referred questions were answered accordingly. The Court declined to decide the challenge to the reference order in O.P.(C) No. 903 of 2026, as that issue had become academic; the connected cases were ordered in those terms.