-03fl22bbl066

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. _____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

​
Priya Devi …Petitioner​
Versus​
Rajesh Kumar …Respondent

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRIT PETITION NO.: _____/2025

Under Article 136 of The Constitution of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1.​ List of Abbreviations

2.​ Index of Authorities
3.​ Statement of Jurisdiction
4.​ Statement of Facts
5.​ Issues Raised
6.​ Summary of Arguments
7.​ Arguments Advanced
8.​ Prayer

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full form

HSA Hindu Succession Act, 1956

HMA Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

LIR Live-in Relationship

DV Act Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

●​ The Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19, 21

●​ Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 6, 8, 14
●​ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 7
●​ Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(s)

CASES

●​ Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755

●​ Tulsa & Ors. v. Durghatiya & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 520
●​ Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527
●​ Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301
●​ Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141
●​ Payal Katara v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, (2002) All LJ 2545

BOOKS & JOURNALS

●​ M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, 2014, Lexis Nexis
●​ Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition
●​ V.D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, 5th Edition, 1993, EBC
●​ John W. Salmond, Jurisprudence, 4th Edition, 1913, Ballantyne Press London
●​ Mulla, Dinshaw Fardunji – Principles of Hindu Law, 23rd Edition, Lexis Nexis.
●​ Rakesh Kumar Singh – Hindu Law and Custom, Eastern Book Company.
●​ Paras Diwan – Modern Hindu Law, Allahabad Law Agency.

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner approaches this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking Special
Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which denied her rights as an heir under the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, despite her long-term live-in relationship with the deceased.

Article 136 in Constitution of India

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1)​Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2)​Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made
by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.​ Rajesh Kumar, is the only son of the late Shiv Prasad, who passed away intestate (without a will) in
2023. ShivPrasad was a well-known businessman, and his estate includes a significant amount of
ancestral property, primarily agricultural land and a residential property in the village of Chandipur,
Upper Pradesh. According to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as the only legal heir, Rajesh claims
his entitlement to the full share of his father's estate, which he believes is rightfully his as the sole
legal descendant.

2.​ Priya Devi, the respondent, was in a long-term live-in relationship with Shiv Prasad for over fifteen
years. Priya, a widow from an earlier marriage, moved into Shiv Prasad’s household in 2008 after a
period of cohabitation that lasted for several months. Their relationship was publicly acknowledged,
and they were often seen together in family and social gatherings. The couple shared a life together,
with Priya taking on the role of the housewife and Shiv Prasad acting as the breadwinner. Over the
years, the couple lived together as a family, though they did not have a formal marriage ceremony,
nor did they register their union legally under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3.​ Priya and Shiv Prasad did not have any biological children, but Priya raised Rajesh as her own son
after his mother, who was Shiv Prasad’s first wife, passed away when Rajesh was only five years old.
Shiv Prasad and Priya were seen as a committed couple by their community, with many regarding
Priya as his wife, despite the absence of a formal marriage ceremony. Over the years, the couple had
shared financial and domestic responsibilities, and Priya was fully involved in the management of the
household, taking care of Shiv Prasad during his old age and sickness.

4.​ Despite their long-term cohabitation, Rajesh, who had moved to a different city for work and was
largely estranged from his father in the years preceding Shiv Prasad's death, never acknowledged
Priya as a wife, claiming that the relationship had no legal basis in Hindu law due to the lack of a
formal marriage. Rajesh, upon the death of his father, moved quickly to file for the inheritance of his
father’s property, stating that as the only legal heir, he was entitled to the entire estate.

5.​ Priya, however, filed a petition in the local civil court, asserting that she had been in a de facto
marital relationship with Shiv Prasad for over fifteen years and that she should be recognized as his
wife for the purposes of inheritance.

6.​ She argued that their relationship was akin to a marriage, as they had lived together in a familial and
conjugal arrangement, shared resources, and held themselves out as a couple in their community.
Priya further stated that she had supported her partner in his business dealings and had contributed to
the management of his household, thus qualifying for a share of his ancestral property as his wife
under Hindu law.

7.​ Priya's legal claim is based on the argument that the absence of a formal marriage does not negate the
reality of their relationship, and as such, she should be entitled to a share of Shiv Prasad’s estate,
particularly under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides for the rights of
the wife in matters of inheritance. Priya further contends that, as the partner who supported Shiv
Prasad throughout their years together and was instrumental in the functioning of the household, she
should not be denied her rightful claim to the property.

5
8.​ Rajesh, on the other hand, has strongly opposed this claim, asserting that Priya cannot be considered
a legal wife as no religious or formal ceremony was performed to solemnize their relationship. He
maintains that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not recognize individuals in live-in relationships
as heirs to ancestral property unless they are formally married under the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act. Rajesh also argues that Priya’s claims of inheritance are without merit, as they would
bypass the legal framework that governs the rights of legal heirs under Hindu law, specifically those
relating to ancestral property.

9.​ In the face of these opposing claims, the case was brought before the district court, which ruled in
favour of Rajesh, stating that live-in relationships do not confer inheritance rights equivalent to those
granted by marriage. Priya, aggrieved by this judgment, appealed to the High Court. The High Court
stayed the judgment and allowed the case to be heard, considering the evolving nature of societal
norms and legal interpretations regarding live-in relationships in India.

10.​As the matter now stands before the Supreme Court of Indiana, the issue at hand is whether Priya
Devi, having been in a long-term live-in relationship with Shiv Prasad, can claim inheritance rights
over his ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, despite the absence of a formal
marriage. The Court will also have to address broader questions about the rights of individuals in
live-in relationships, particularly in the context of Hindu law, and whether such relationships should
be treated as legally equivalent to marriages for purposes of inheritance.

6
 ISSUES RAISED

1.​ Whether a long-term live-in partner qualifies as a 'wife' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, based
on judicial interpretations and customary practices in Hindu law?

2.​ Whether a woman in a live-in relationship has an enforceable right to inherit her partner’s ancestral
and self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?​

3.​ Whether the exclusion of live-in partners from inheritance rights contradicts the principles of Dharma
and evolving Hindu jurisprudence on familial obligations?​

4.​ Whether Hindu law, as interpreted by courts, necessitates a progressive approach to succession laws
to include the realities of contemporary familial structures?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.​ Whether a long-term live-in partner qualifies as a 'wife' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
based on judicial interpretations and customary practices in Hindu law?​
Argument: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, primarily governs the inheritance rights of legal heirs
in Hindu families. However, judicial interpretations have expanded the definition of a ‘wife’ beyond
strict marital formalities. Landmark judgments, including Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation (1978)1, have recognized long-term live-in relationships as creating a presumption of
marriage. Given that Hindu law acknowledges cohabitation as a legitimate form of partnership, the
Petitioner is entitled to be recognized as a wife under the HSA.

2.​ Whether a woman in a live-in relationship has an enforceable right to inherit her partner’s
ancestral and self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?​
Argument: The HSA distinguishes between ancestral and self-acquired property but does not
explicitly exclude women in live-in relationships from inheritance rights. Section 14 of the HSA
recognizes a Hindu woman’s full ownership rights over property possessed by her, reflecting an
intent to ensure financial security for women. Additionally, in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha (2011)2The Supreme Court held that women in long-term live-in relationships should be
granted similar rights to legally wedded wives. Therefore, excluding the Petitioner would be contrary
to both statutory and judicial principles.

3.​ Whether the exclusion of live-in partners from inheritance rights contradicts the principles of
Dharma and evolving Hindu jurisprudence on familial obligations?​
Argument: Hindu law is deeply rooted in the principles of Dharma, which emphasize familial
responsibilities and fairness. Ancient texts, including the Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti,
highlight the duty of maintaining and protecting dependent women. Modern judicial interpretations
have adapted these principles to contemporary social realities. The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v.
V.K.V. Sarma (2013)3 recognized the need to protect women in live-in relationships from destitution,
reinforcing the idea that such relationships should not be left without legal safeguards. Denying the
Petitioner inheritance rights would, therefore, contradict the Dharmic obligations of a Hindu family.

1
1978 AIR 1557
2
SCC 141, 2011 CRI. L. J. 96
3
AIR BOM R 615

8
 4.​ Whether Hindu law, as interpreted by courts, necessitates a progressive approach to succession
laws to include the realities of contemporary familial structures?​
Argument: Hindu law has consistently evolved to address societal changes, as evidenced by
amendments to the HSA and various judicial pronouncements. Courts have recognized that rigid
adherence to traditional marital concepts does not align with modern family structures. In Tulsa v.
Durghatiya (2008)4The Supreme Court held that when a man and woman cohabit as husband and
wife for a prolonged period, the law must presume a valid marriage. This progressive approach
underscores the need to reinterpret the HSA in a manner that includes live-in partners within the
ambit of inheritance rights, ensuring legal protection for vulnerable women in non-traditional
relationships.

4
2008 AIR SCW 1148

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.​ Whether a long-term live-in partner qualifies as a 'wife' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
based on judicial interpretations and customary practices in Hindu law?​

1.1.​ Presumption of Marriage and Legal Recognition:

The Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978)5 held that
long-term cohabitation creates a strong presumption of marriage, shifting the burden of proof
onto those contesting the relationship. This principle, rooted in Hindu jurisprudence,
recognizes that marriage is not merely a ceremonial contract but a socio-legal institution that
upholds social security and stability. In cases where a woman has been in a stable,
acknowledged relationship, denying her inheritance rights solely on procedural grounds
would amount to a miscarriage of justice.​

1.2.​ Judicial Expansion of the Definition of 'Wife':

In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011)6, the Supreme Court categorically
ruled that women in live-in relationships should not be denied legal protection solely due to
the absence of a formal marriage ceremony. The Court emphasized that where a man and
woman have lived together as husband and wife and society has recognized them as such,
their relationship should be deemed a marriage for legal purposes. This interpretation aligns
with the broader legislative intent of Hindu law, which seeks to provide economic security to
women and prevent their destitution after the dissolution of a relationship.​

1.3.​ Customary Recognition of Non-Traditional Marriages:

Hindu law acknowledges various forms of marriages, including Gandharva and Asura
marriages, which do not necessarily adhere to formal rituals but are validated by cohabitation
and mutual consent. Courts have historically upheld the legitimacy of such relationships in
matters of inheritance. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)7, while the Court denied
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, acknowledged that the lack of legal recognition left
many women vulnerable and stressed the need for legislative intervention to protect such
relationships. The extension of succession rights to live-in partners would be in line with this
judicial intent, ensuring that they are not left without legal recourse in inheritance matters.

5
1978 AIR 1557
6
SCC 141, 2011 CRI. L. J. 96
7
AIR BOM R 615
10
 2.​ Whether a woman in a live-in relationship has an enforceable right to inherit her partner’s
ancestral and self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?​

2.1.​ Application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act:

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted to grant women absolute
ownership over property acquired or possessed by them. The legislative intent behind this
provision was to undo the historical disadvantage faced by women in matters of inheritance
and property rights. Courts have interpreted this provision expansively to secure women’s
economic independence. In Vidhyadhari & Ors. v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. (2008)8, the Supreme
Court recognized the inheritance rights of a woman in a live-in relationship. In this case, the
deceased had nominated his live-in partner as the beneficiary of his provident fund and life
insurance policies. The Court ruled in favor of the live-in partner over the legal heirs,
acknowledging the evolving nature of familial relationships and the necessity of ensuring
financial security for women in such arrangements. This decision sets a significant precedent
for interpreting the Hindu Succession Act in a manner that protects the interests of live-in
partners.

2.2.​ Judicial Trends Favoring an Expansive Interpretation of Succession Rights:

The Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008)9 ruled that prolonged cohabitation should
raise a legal presumption of marriage. The Court held that when a couple has lived together
and society has accepted them as husband and wife, the law must presume their marital status
unless proven otherwise. This principle directly applies to succession laws, as a restrictive
interpretation of 'wife' would defeat the very purpose of the Hindu Succession Act, which
seeks to prevent financial deprivation.​

2.3.​ Recognition of Economic Contributions in a Relationship:

Hindu jurisprudence has long recognized the contributions of women to household stability.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, extended its ambit to live-in
relationships, acknowledging their social and economic significance. Denying inheritance
rights to live-in partners while simultaneously recognizing their right to maintenance under
the DV Act creates a legal inconsistency. The principle of harmonious construction
necessitates that laws be interpreted in a way that promotes gender justice, ensuring that
live-in partners are not excluded from succession rights arbitrarily.

8
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1420
9
2008 AIR SCW 1148
11
 3.​ Whether the exclusion of live-in partners from inheritance rights contradicts the principles of
Dharma and evolving Hindu jurisprudence on familial obligations?​

3.1.​ Dharma and the Duty to Protect Dependents:

The foundational principle of Dharma in Hindu law imposes an obligation on male
householders to maintain and protect dependents, including wives and women who have
shared a conjugal relationship with them. Ancient Hindu texts, including Manusmriti and
Yajnavalkya Smriti, emphasize that a man must provide financial security to the woman he
cohabits with. If Hindu law is to remain true to its Dharmic principles, it must ensure that
women in long-term relationships are not left without protection due to legal technicalities.​

3.2.​ Judicial Interpretation of Hindu Familial Obligations:

In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)10, the Court recognized that denying legal recognition
to live-in relationships results in economic vulnerability for women. The Court observed that
while legislative intervention was required, judicial interpretations must also adapt to
contemporary realities. The duty to provide financial security to live-in partners is in line with
the overarching duty of care enshrined in Hindu jurisprudence.​

3.3.​ Historical Evolution of Inheritance Rights in Hindu Law:

Hindu inheritance laws have evolved over time to address gender disparities. The Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, granted equal coparcenary rights to daughters,
correcting a longstanding inequity. Similarly, judicial interpretations of succession laws must
acknowledge the changing nature of family structures and ensure that live-in partners are not
left without legal recourse. The principle of equity, which underlies Hindu jurisprudence,
mandates that courts extend inheritance protections to women in live-in relationships who
have functioned as de facto wives.​

10
2013 AIR SCW 6783, 2013 (15) SCC 755

12
 4.​ Whether Hindu law, as interpreted by courts, necessitates a progressive approach to succession
laws to include the realities of contemporary familial structures?​

4.1.​ Judicial Acknowledgement of Changing Social Norms:

In Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)11, the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships are a
legitimate expression of personal choice and must not be subjected to moral scrutiny. The
Court emphasized that laws must evolve in tandem with societal changes, acknowledging the
increasing prevalence of non-traditional family structures. If Hindu succession laws are to
remain relevant, they must recognize the inheritance rights of live-in partners who have
functioned as spouses in every practical sense.​

4.2.​ Recognition of Customary and Socially Accepted Marriages Under Hindu Law:
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, acknowledges the validity of marriages performed according
to customary rites. If such marriages are granted legal recognition despite the absence of
formal registration, the same principle should apply to live-in relationships that have been
socially acknowledged. Inheritance rights cannot be denied merely due to procedural
formalities when substantive familial obligations have been established.​

4.3.​ Judicial Expansion of Women’s Rights in Hindu Law:

In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)12, the Supreme Court reinforced the progressive
trajectory of Hindu succession law by affirming daughters' equal rights as coparceners. This
ruling underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting Hindu law in a manner that upholds
gender equality. A similar approach must be adopted to protect live-in partners, ensuring that
they are not left financially vulnerable due to the non-existence of a formal marriage contract.​

4.4.​ International Legal Trends and Their Relevance to Hindu Law:

Jurisdictions such as the UK, France, and Canada recognize inheritance rights for cohabiting
partners, reflecting the global trend toward ensuring economic security for non-marital
partners. Indian courts have previously relied on international human rights principles in
cases concerning gender justice. A progressive interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act
would align India with global best practices while upholding the principles of equity and
justice intrinsic to Hindu law.​

11
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3196
12
AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717

13
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Indiana, that it may be graciously pleased to:

1.​ Declare that a long-term live-in partner qualifies as a ‘wife’ under the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, for the purposes of inheritance rights.
2.​ Hold that the Petitioner is entitled to inherit both ancestral and self-acquired property of the
deceased under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3.​ Direct that the interpretation of ‘wife’ under Hindu succession laws must align with judicial
precedents recognizing live-in relationships as equivalent to marriage.
4.​ Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice and equity.

For this act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall be duty bound forever to pray.

Place: Union of Indiana Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 21th February 2025. Counsel for petitioner

14