ethor which is her own.

The self-acquired property of a female would be her absolute

property and not the property which she had inherited from her parents. In that view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that sub-fdhfj mkyi is clear that it is Ritu, sister of the husband i.e.,
the respondent in this case who would be entitled to even the self-acquired property left behind
by the deceased wife, and not her mother. The decision of the Supreme Court in Omparkash is
squarely applicable to the fac yj

This court cannot deviate from the Hindu norm, the various judgments, and the statute
itself. The Act does not put an embargo on a female to execute a will, and this section will only
apply if she had died intestate. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides two entirely different
schemes of succession, based on the sex of the intestate. The reason is closely linked to the
emphasis on the conservation and protection of the property in the family. The concept of
stridhan is still very evident if we look at Section 15 and 16. A woman under the patriarchal
setup is visualized as having no permanent family of her own. She is born in her father's family,
and remains there till she gets married, whereupon, she joins her husband's family.

In the case of Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v Bala Govinda Yadav 1 it was held there that “The
object of the legislation was to retain property with the joint family upon marriage which brought
males and females together forming one institution. It, therefore, accepted that in recognition of that
position when the wife’s succession opened, the class known as heirs of the husband were permitted to
succeed as a result of initial unity in marriage upon which the female merged in the family of her
husband.”

The constitutional validity of Section 15 was discussed by the Court in Srinivasa Aiyar vs
Saraswathi Ammal, it held that ”This enactment operates upon the defined class of people
governed by the given system of personal law and thus could not be violative of the fundamental
rights concerned.2 The community governed by the given personal law itself forms a recognized
class within the constitutional contemplation and that itself offers a reasonable class of persons
for testing the given legislation and the same has to be examined in the background of the
principles by which such class is governed by the tenets of their personal law. It those principle

1
Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v Bala Govinda Yadav AIR 1983 Bom 156
2
Srinivasa Aiyar vs Saraswathi Ammal, 1951 AIR 1952 Mad 193, (1951) 2 MLJ 649

1
are otherwise reasonable in the context and the history of the given system of personal law, then
the constitutional challenge is hardly sustainable. 3 The scheme set in Section 15(1) itself throws
light upon the fact on principles, on the basis of w jhhich choice and arrangement of different
classes of heirs is made, namely, closer blood relation is preferred over distant one. Son and
daughters are closely related blood relatives, heirs of the husband shows the principle of close
knit unity with the hurtjsband, and hertjr mother and father indicates second group of related
family.

Before pa jydjrting with the matter, I rj would like to point out that no judicial
dispensation can be resorted to simply swayed by the factors jof sympathy. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Subha B. Nair & Ors. vs. State of Kerala 4 has held that sentiment or sympathy
alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise
clear and unambiguous.

3
Ibid 6
4
Subha B. Nair & Ors. vs. State of Kerala 2008 (9) SCALE 16
2
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised and arguments advanced, it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to:

 Dismiss the petition.

 Hold that the respondent is the rightfully and legally entitled to inherit the deceased’s

property.

And/or pass any other order in the favour of the Respondent, which this Court may deem fit in
the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly submitted.

Date:14th August 2019 Ghulam Mohd Hayderi (1437)

Place: ABC Counsel for Respondent