You are currently viewing Family law 1 Hindu Law Osmania University LL.B Notes||Family law 1 Hindu Law LLB 3 YDC Material Osmania University|Family law 1 Hindu Law LLB 5YDC Notes Osmania University|LLB 3YDC-1st SEM Study Material-PDF Download Free|

Family law 1 Hindu Law Osmania University LL.B Notes||Family law 1 Hindu Law LLB 3 YDC Material Osmania University|Family law 1 Hindu Law LLB 5YDC Notes Osmania University|LLB 3YDC-1st SEM Study Material-PDF Download Free|

Start Your Journey to Academic Success Today!

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to access free LL.B PDF materials for Osmania University. Whether you’re in your first semester or nearing the end of your course, these PDFs are designed to meet your needs.

Download PDF

PART-C

Osmania University LL.B Part C Solutions Mycets.com

Note: There is no standard solution for any type of problem in Part C, as law students we have different perspectives and interpretation so we need to focus on the Draft, Section, Articles to support your discussion.

These are Sample solutions of few of the questions which will help you to know the pattern of answer which will fetch you marks in EXAM.

 

Issue:

The primary issue in this case is whether B, a Hindu wife, can successfully obtain a divorce based on her husband’s conduct when his parents demanded money from her parents and he remained unresponsive to her concerns. The question also involves determining whether such behavior constitutes cruelty or any other valid ground for divorce under Hindu law.

Rule:

Divorce among Hindus is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The relevant legal provisions applicable here are:

  1. Section 13(1)(i-a) – Cruelty:

    • A party to the marriage can seek divorce if the other spouse has treated them with cruelty.
    • Cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty.
    • Mental cruelty can include indifference, neglect, emotional distress, humiliation, or failure to fulfill marital obligations.
  2. Section 13(1)(i-b) – Desertion (Not Applicable Here):

    • One spouse leaving the other for two continuous years can be a ground for divorce. However, this is not relevant in the present case as there is no mention of A abandoning B.
  3. Dowry Demand – Read with Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and IPC Section 498A:

    • Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 penalizes any direct or indirect demand for dowry.
    • Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 punishes cruelty against a wife, including harassment due to dowry demands.
    • If A’s parents’ demand for money is construed as dowry and A’s silence indicates tacit approval, it could amount to dowry harassment, further strengthening B’s case.

Application:

  • In the given scenario, A’s parents demanded money from B’s parents to help A start a nursing home. Though A himself did not make the demand, his silence and indifference when B informed him about it can be viewed as emotional neglect and mental cruelty.
  • Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, mental cruelty does not require overtly abusive behavior—it can be inferred from circumstances that cause emotional suffering. A’s failure to support B against his parents’ demands may be considered insensitive and mentally distressing, thereby constituting cruelty.
  • If B can establish in court that A’s parents’ demand for money was indeed a dowry-related demand, then she can also file a separate criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  • Since there is no evidence of A deserting B for two years, desertion as a ground for divorce is not applicable here.

Conclusion:

B is likely to succeed in obtaining a divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court may consider A’s silence and failure to intervene as mental cruelty. Additionally, if she provides evidence that her in-laws’ demand was dowry-related, she may also take legal action under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which could further support her case.

Issue:

The primary issue in this case is whether C, the daughter of K, can claim a share in the ancestral property after the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, despite being married in 1984 and not receiving any share earlier.

Rule:

The case is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically after its amendment in 2005, which brought significant changes regarding the rights of daughters in ancestral property. The relevant legal provisions are:

  1. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Amended in 2005):

    • The amendment grants equal coparcenary rights to daughters in a Hindu Joint Family property, just like sons.
    • It applies to ancestral property, meaning property inherited up to four generations through the male lineage.
    • Even if the daughter was married before 2005, she still retains the right to claim a share in the property.
  2. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) Judgment:

    • The Supreme Court clarified that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, not just from the date of the 2005 amendment.
    • It also ruled that the father need not be alive as of 2005 for the daughter to claim a share.
  3. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) Judgment (Overruled by Vineeta Sharma case):

    • Initially, it was held that the father must be alive on September 9, 2005, for the daughter to claim rights.
    • However, this was later overturned by the Vineeta Sharma case, granting retrospective rights to daughters.

Application:

  • The property in question is ancestral property, meaning it falls under the purview of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005.
  • C was denied a share earlier because she was a daughter and was married in 1984, but the 2005 amendment now gives daughters equal rights as sons, regardless of their marital status.
  • Since C’s father (K) was alive and the property existed at the time of the amendment, she is entitled to an equal share as A and B.
  • The Vineeta Sharma judgment (2020) further strengthens her case, confirming that daughters are coparceners by birth, and she does not need to prove that her father was alive in 2005.
  • Therefore, she can file a partition suit and claim her rightful share.

 

Conclusion:

Yes, C will succeed in her partition suit for a share in the ancestral property. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, along with the Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) judgment, ensures that daughters have equal coparcenary rights as sons, irrespective of when they were married. Therefore, C is legally entitled to claim her share.

Issue:

The key issue in this case is whether A can file a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu law when he and B have been living together for six years but without a legally recognized marriage.

Rule:

The relevant legal provisions for restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu law are:

  1. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

    • Provides that if either spouse withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable cause, the aggrieved spouse can file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
    • The court may grant a decree if there is a valid marriage between the parties.
  2. Definition of Marriage under Hindu Law:

    • A marriage under Hindu law must comply with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which states that a Hindu marriage is valid only if:
      • Both parties are Hindus
      • The ceremonies prescribed by Hindu traditions (like Saptapadi, i.e., seven rounds around the sacred fire) are performed.
  3. Cohabitation vs. Marriage:

    • Merely living together for six years does not constitute a legally valid Hindu marriage.
    • In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that live-in relationships do not confer marital rights.
    • Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) also stated that a relationship resembling marriage may sometimes be presumed as a valid marriage, but only if the essential ceremonies of marriage were performed.
  4. Bigamy and Customary Practices:

    • If A and B had not performed any legal marriage ceremony, they are not legally recognized as husband and wife, meaning restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not applicable.

Application:

  • A and B lived together for six years, but there is no mention of any legal Hindu marriage being performed.
  • The mere act of cohabitation does not create a valid marriage under Hindu law.
  • Since A and B were never legally married, A cannot seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • If A claims that a customary marriage took place, he must provide proof of ceremonies and rituals performed, otherwise, the petition will fail.

Conclusion:

No, A will not succeed in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights because he was never legally married to B. Hindu law requires a valid marriage for a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and merely living together does not grant conjugal rights.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether A, the husband, can claim custody of his minor wife G under Hindu law, asserting that he is her natural guardian after marriage.

Rule:

The relevant provisions under Hindu law and other Indian laws applicable to this case are:

  1. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:

    • The natural guardian of a Hindu minor girl is:
      • First, her father
      • Then, her mother
      • The husband is not recognized as a natural guardian while the wife is a minor.
  2. Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

    • The minimum age for marriage under Hindu law is 18 years for females and 21 years for males.
    • Since G is only 16 years old, this marriage is not valid as per the legal requirement.
  3. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006:

    • While a marriage involving a minor is voidable, not automatically void, it can be annulled at the request of the minor (Section 3).
    • The minor has the right to repudiate the marriage upon reaching 18 years of age.
  4. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890:

    • The father remains the legal guardian of a minor daughter, even if she gets married before attaining majority.
    • The husband cannot claim custody while she is a minor.

Application:

  • Since G is a minor (16 years old), her father remains her natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
  • A's claim that he is the natural guardian after marriage is legally incorrect, as a husband becomes the guardian only when the wife attains majority (18 years).
  • Moreover, the marriage itself is not legally valid as per Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, because G is underage.
  • Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, G can repudiate the marriage upon turning 18, and her father has the right to take her custody as she is still a minor.
  • A has no legal standing to claim custody of his minor wife.

 

Conclusion:

No, A will not succeed in his petition. G’s father remains her natural guardian under Hindu law as she is still a minor. The marriage, being in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not give A any special rights to claim custody.

Issue:

The key issue is whether A, a Hindu who converted to Islam, can legally marry X, a Muslim woman, while his first wife B, married under Hindu law, is still alive. Additionally, can B prevent A from marrying X under Indian law?

Rule:

  1. Bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

    • A Hindu male married under Hindu law cannot marry again during the lifetime of his first wife.
    • If he does so, the second marriage is void, and he can be punished with up to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine.
  2. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

    • If a Hindu, already married under Hindu law, enters into another marriage, the second marriage is void.
    • This provision applies regardless of conversion to another religion.
  3. The Landmark Case: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995 AIR 1531, 1995 SCC (3) 635)

    • The Supreme Court held that a Hindu husband cannot escape the consequences of bigamy by converting to Islam and then marrying again.
    • Conversion does not dissolve the first marriage automatically.
    • The second marriage is invalid, and the person can be prosecuted for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
  4. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000 AIR 1650, 2000 SCC (6) 224)

    • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that mere conversion to Islam does not permit a Hindu man to remarry without first legally dissolving his Hindu marriage through divorce.
    • If the first wife is alive and the marriage has not been legally dissolved, the second marriage is void and punishable under IPC.

Application:

  • Since A was married to B under Hindu law, his marriage remains legally binding.
  • Conversion to Islam does not dissolve a Hindu marriage, and therefore, B remains A’s legally wedded wife.
  • If A marries X without divorcing B, his marriage to X will be void.
  • B can file a criminal case under Section 494 IPC against A for bigamy.
  • B can also file a civil suit to seek an injunction from the court, preventing A from marrying X.

 

Conclusion:

Yes, B can prevent A from marrying X by taking legal action:

  1. File a criminal complaint under Section 494 IPC for bigamy.
  2. Seek an injunction from the court to restrain A from remarrying without first obtaining a legal divorce.
  3. Use the precedent from Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) to establish that conversion to Islam does not legalize the second marriage.

Thus, A cannot lawfully marry X while B is still his legally wedded wife under Hindu law.

Issue:

The key issue is whether the adoption of a girl child by a Hindu husband with two sons remains valid under Hindu law, even after the subsequent birth of a female child to the couple.

Rule:

The adoption of children by Hindus is governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). Relevant provisions are:

  1. Section 7 – Capacity of a Male Hindu to Adopt:

    • A Hindu male can adopt a child if he is of sound mind and has the consent of his wife (unless she is incapacitated).
    • In this case, the husband has the consent of his wife, so this requirement is fulfilled.
  2. Section 11(i) – Adoption of a Son or Daughter:

    • A person who already has a living son cannot adopt another son.
    • A person who already has a living daughter cannot adopt another daughter.
    • However, since the person in this case only had two sons and no daughters at the time of adoption, adopting a girl child was legally permissible.
  3. Effect of Subsequent Birth on Adoption:

    • The subsequent birth of a biological daughter does not affect the validity of the prior adoption.
    • Once the adoption is legally completed, it cannot be revoked merely because a biological child was later born.
    • The adopted child enjoys the same rights as a biological child under Section 12 of HAMA.

Application:

  • The Hindu husband, having only sons at the time, was legally entitled to adopt a girl child.
  • The wife’s consent was obtained, making the adoption legally valid under Section 7.
  • The later birth of a biological daughter does not invalidate the adoption under Hindu law.
  • The adopted girl remains a lawful child with full rights in the family.

Conclusion:

The adoption is legally valid, and the adopted daughter retains all legal rights as a daughter in the family. The subsequent birth of a female child does not affect the legality of the adoption under Hindu law.

Issue:

The key issue is whether a Hindu father, acting as the natural guardian of his minor son, can sell the immovable property of the minor for educational purposes and whether the minor, upon attaining majority, has the right to avoid the sale transaction.

Rule:

The Hindu guardianship and alienation of minor’s property is governed by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) and the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA). The relevant legal provisions are:

  1. Section 6 of HMGA, 1956 – Natural Guardianship:

    • The father is the natural guardian of a minor Hindu boy.
    • However, his power over the minor’s property is not absolute.
  2. Section 8(1) of HMGA, 1956 – Restriction on Guardian’s Power:

    • The natural guardian cannot transfer the minor’s immovable property without the prior permission of the court.
    • Any sale made without court approval is voidable at the option of the minor upon attaining majority.
  3. Section 8(3) of HMGA, 1956 – Effect of Unauthorized Transfer:

    • If the natural guardian sells the minor’s immovable property without court permission, the transaction is voidable at the instance of the minor.
    • The minor, upon attaining majority, can either accept the sale or get it set aside.
  4. Relevant Case Law:

    • Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) – Recognized limitations on a guardian’s power over minor’s property.
    • Rajalakshmi v. Ramachandran (2001) – Sale of minor’s property without court sanction was held voidable at the minor’s instance.

Application:

  • In this case, the father sold the minor’s immovable property for educational needs, which might be a necessity but still requires prior court permission.
  • Since no court approval was taken, the sale is voidable at the minor’s discretion.
  • After attaining majority, the minor has the legal right to challenge and set aside the transaction.

Conclusion:

The minor, upon attaining majority, can file a suit in the appropriate court to set aside the sale under Section 8(3) of HMGA, 1956. The court will likely declare the transaction void unless the buyer can prove that the sale was for an absolute necessity and in the best interest of the minor.

Issue:

The core legal issues in this case are:

  1. Whether the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  2. Whether the wife (B) can seek divorce instead of complying with the RCR petition.

Rule:

The provision for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) is provided under:

  • Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – It allows a spouse to seek court intervention when the other spouse withdraws from their company without reasonable excuse.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to privacy and autonomy in marriage.

Relevant Case Laws:

  1. T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983) – The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9 of the HMA as unconstitutional, stating that forcing cohabitation violates Article 21.
  2. Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh (1984) – The Delhi High Court upheld Section 9, ruling that marriage involves mutual obligations and RCR is a legal remedy.
  3. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar (1984) SC – The Supreme Court upheld Section 9 as valid but clarified that non-compliance for one year can be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1A) of the HMA.
  4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Emphasized that forced cohabitation violates personal liberty and privacy rights.

Application:

  • B’s objection that RCR violates her fundamental rights is supported by T. Sareetha’s case but contradicted by Saroj Rani’s case, where the Supreme Court upheld Section 9.
  • B’s divorce petition is legally valid. If she refuses cohabitation for one year after the RCR decree, she can seek divorce under Section 13(1A) of the HMA.
  • The constitutional validity of RCR is debatable, but the Supreme Court has upheld it in Saroj Rani’s case.

 

Conclusion:

  • If the court grants RCR in favor of D, B can still refuse to comply and later file for divorce after one year under Section 13(1A) of the HMA.
  • However, if B can prove that RCR violates her fundamental rights, the court may dismiss D’s petition.
  • Given the Supreme Court’s position, B cannot claim an absolute right under Article 21 to reject RCR but can seek divorce instead.

Issue:

The legal issue here is whether a Hindu male (X) can contract a second marriage with Z during the lifetime of his legally wedded wife (Y) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), even if all relatives have consented.

Rule:

Under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage is valid only if:

  • Neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage.
  • Bigamy is prohibited, and a second marriage while the first spouse is alive is void ab initio.

Under Section 11 of the HMA, any marriage in violation of Section 5(i) is:

  • Void from inception (i.e., has no legal standing).
  • No legal rights are granted to the second spouse.

Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

  • Bigamy is a punishable offense with imprisonment up to seven years, or a fine, or both.

Relevant Case Law:

  1. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) – The Supreme Court ruled that a second marriage during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse is void under Hindu law.
  2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) – The Supreme Court held that conversion to Islam for the sole purpose of entering into a second marriage does not make the second marriage valid and amounts to bigamy.
  3. Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga (2004) – Reaffirmed that bigamous marriages under Hindu law are void, irrespective of family or social acceptance.

Application:

  • X’s second marriage with Z during the lifetime of Y is completely void under Section 11 of HMA.
  • Consent of relatives is legally irrelevant—personal laws and statutory provisions cannot be overridden by social acceptance.
  • X may also be criminally liable for bigamy under Section 494 of IPC.
  • Z, the second wife, has no legal rights as a wife but can claim relief under Section 125 of CrPC if she proves that she was unaware of X’s first marriage.

 

Conclusion:

  • The second marriage is null and void under Hindu law (HMA, 1955).
  • X can be prosecuted for bigamy under IPC.
  • Z has no legal status as a wife but may have limited rights under CrPC if she was deceived.

Issue:

The issue is how the joint family property of A, a Hindu male who died in 2007, should be distributed among his daughter, son, father, and mother under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Rule:

Since the death occurred in 2007, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 applies, which granted equal coparcenary rights to daughters in Hindu Joint Family Property.

Types of Property:

  1. If A’s property was Joint Hindu Family Property (HUF Property):

    • The property passes by survivorship among the remaining coparceners (i.e., son and daughter in this case).
    • Father and mother do not get a share in coparcenary property unless partitioned.
  2. If A’s property was his Separate or Self-Acquired Property:

    • It will be distributed as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
    • Class I heirs (son, daughter, widow, mother) take precedence over Class II heirs (father).

Application:

  • If it is Joint Family Property (HUF Property):

    • The property will be divided equally between A’s son and daughter as coparceners.
    • Father and mother do not inherit unless the property is partitioned before A’s death.
  • If it is Separate Property:

    • Mother, Son, and Daughter are Class I heirs and inherit equally.
    • Father (a Class II heir) does not inherit because Class I heirs are present.
    • Each Class I heir (son, daughter, and mother) will receive 1/3rd share of A’s property.

 

Conclusion:

  • If Joint Family Property → Only son and daughter inherit equally.
  • If Separate Property → Daughter, son, and mother inherit equally (1/3 each), and the father gets nothing.

Leave a Reply