COURSE-IV: FAMILY LAW-I: HINDU LAW

UNIT – I
 Introduction - Concept of Dharma - Sources of Hindu Law – Modern and Ancient -
 Importance of Dharma Shastra on Legislation – Two Principal Schools of Hindu Law -
 Application of Hindu Law.

Hindu Law
From thousands of years’ people living in the Indian subcontinent have been leading their lives by following the guidelines and
concepts given in the Vedas. These guidelines have evolved into rules followed by the people and enforced by the rulers and
have thus become de facto law. In this modern times, the same laws have been retrofitted to suit present conditions and have
been codified in the form of several acts of which the important ones are - Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, and Hindu Succession Act 1956.

Concept of Dharma

Hindu Law is a body of principles or rules called ‘Dharma’. Dharma according to Hindu texts
embraces everything in life. According to the Hindus, ‘Dharma’ includes not only what is known
as law in the modern sense of the term but all rules of good and proper human conduct.
Dharma is used to mean justice what is right in a given circumstance, moral, religious, pious or
righteous conduct, being helpful to living beings and things, duty, law and usage or custom
having in the force of law and also a valid Rajashasana.

Origins of Hindu Law

It is believed that Hindu law is a divine law. It was revealed to the people by God through Vedas. Various sages and ascetics
have elaborated and refined the abstract concepts of life explained in the Vedas.

Sources of Hindu Law

Sources of Hindu Law can be divided into two parts - Ancient and Modern.

1. Ancient Sources
Before the codification of Hindu Law, the ancient literature was the only source of the law. These sources can be divided into
four categories:

A. Shruti
Shruti means "what is heard".  It is believed that the rishis and munis had reached the height of spirituality where they were
revealed the knowledge of Vedas. Thus, shrutis include the four vedas -  rig, yajur, sam, and athrava along with their
brahmanas. The brahmanas are like the apendices to the Vedas. Vedas primarily contain theories about sacrifices, rituals, and
customs. Some people believe that Vedas contain no specific laws, while some believe that the laws have to be inferred from
the complete text of the Vedas.  Vedas do refer to certain rights and duties, forms of marriage, requirement of a son, exclusion
of women from inheritance, and partition but these are not very clearcut laws.  
During the vedic period, the society was divided into varns and life was divided into ashramas.  The concept of karma came into
existence during this time. A person will get rewarded as per his karma. He can attain salvation through "knowledge". During
this period the varna system became quite strong. Since vedas had a divine origin, the society was governed as per the theories
given in vedas and they are considered to be the fundamental source of Hindu law. Shrutis basically describe the life of the
Vedic people.

The vedic period is assumed to be between 4000 to 1000 BC. During this time, several pre-smriti sutras and gathas were
composed. However, not much is known about them today. It is believed that various rishis and munis incorporated local
customs into Dharma and thus multiple "shakhas" came into existence.

B. Smruti
Smrit means "what is remembered".  With smrutis, a systematic study and teaching of Vedas started. Many sages, from time to
time, have written down the concepts given in Vedas. So it can be said that Smrutis are a written memoir of the knowledge of
the sages. Immediately after the Vedic period, a need for the regulation of the society arose. Thus, the study of vedas and the
incorporation of local culture and customs became important. It is believed that many smrutis were composed in this period
and some were reduced into writing, however, not all are known. The smrutis can be divided into two - Early smritis
(Dharmasutras) and Later smritis (Dharmashastras). 

Dharmasutras
The Dharmansutras were written during 800 to 200 BC. They were mostly written in prose form but also contain verses. It is
clear that they were meant to be training manuals of sages for teaching students. They incorporate the teachings of Vedas with
local customs. They generally bear the names of their authors and sometime also indicate the shakhas to which they belong.
Some of the important sages whose dharmasutras are known are :  Gautama, Baudhayan, Apastamba, Harita, Vashistha, and
Vishnu.
They explain the duties of men in various relationship. They do not pretend to be anything other than the work of mortals
based on the teachings of Vedas, and the legal decisions given by those who were acquainted with Vedas and local customs.

Gautama - He belonged to Sam veda school and deals exclusively with legal and religious matter. He talks about inheritance,
partition, and stridhan.

Baudhayan -  He belonged to the Krishna Yajurved school and was probably from Andhra Pradesh. He talks about marriage,
sonship, and inheritance. He also refers to various customs of his region such as marriage to maternal uncle's daughter.

Apastamba - His sutra is most preserved. He also belonged to Krishna Yajurveda school from Andhra Pradesh. His language is
very clear and forceful. He rejected prajapatya marriage.

Vashistha - He was from North India and followed the Rigveda school. He recognized remarriage of virgin widows.

Dharmashastras
Dharmashastras were mostly in metrical verses and were based of Dharmasutras.  However, they were a lot more systematic
and clear. They dealt with the subject matter in three parts

 Aachara : This includes the theories of religious observances,

 Vyavahar : This includes the civil law.
 Prayaschitta : This deals with penance and expiation.

While early smrutis deal mainly with Aachara and Prayaschitta, later smrutis mainly dealt with Vyavahar. Out of may
dharmashastras, three are most important.

Manusmriti
This is the earliest and most important of all. It is not only defined the way of life in India but is also well know in Java, Bali, and
Sumatra. The name of the real author is not known because the author has written it under the mythical name of Manu, who is
considered to the the first human. This was probably done to increase its importance due to divine origin. Manusmriti compiles
all the laws that were scattered in pre-smriti sutras and gathas.
He was a brahman protagonist and was particularly harsh on women and sudras.  He holds local customs to be most important.
He directs the king to obey the customs but tries to cloak the king with divinity. He gives importance to the principle of 'danda'
which forces everybody to follow the law. 
Manusmriti was composed in 200 BC.

There have been several commentaries on this smruti. The main ones are:  Kalluka's Manavarthmuktavali, Meghthithi's
Manubhashya, and Govindraja's Manutika.

Yajnavalkya Smriti
Though written after Manusmruti, this is a very important smruti. Its language is very direct and clear. It is also a lot more
logical. He also gives a lot of importance to customs but hold the king to be below the law. He considers law to be the king of
kings and the king to be only an enforcer of the law. He did not deal much with religion and morality but mostly with civil law. It
includes most of the points given in Manusmriti but also differs on many points such as position of women and sudras. He was
more liberal than Manu.
This was composed in around 0 BC.

Vijnaneshwar's commentary 'Mitakshara' on this smruti, is the most important legal treatise followed almost everywhere in
India except in West Bengal and Orissa.

Narada Smriti
Narada was from Nepal and this smriti is well preserved and its complete text is available. This is the only smriti that does not
deal with religion and morality at all but concentrates only on civil law. This is very logical and precise. In general, it is based on
Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya smriti but differ on many points due to changes in social structure. He also gives a lot of
importance to customs.

This was composed in 200 AD.

C. Commentaries and Digest: 

After 200 AD, most the of work was done only on the existing material given in Smrutis. The work done to explain a particular
smriti is called a commentary. Commentaries were composed in the period immediately after 200 AD. Digests were mainly
written after that and incorporated and explained material from all the smruitis. As noted ealier, some of the commentaries
were, manubhashya, manutika, and mitakshara. While the most important digest is Jimutvahan's Dayabhag that is applicable in
the Bengal and Orissa area.
Mitakshara literally means 'New Word' and is paramount source of law in all of  India. It is also considered important in Bengal
and orissa where it relents only where it differs from dayabhaga. It is a very exhaustive treaties of law and incorporates and
irons out contradicts existing in smritis.

The basic objective of these texts was to gather the scattered material available in preceeding texts and present a unified view
for the benefit of the society. Thus, digests were very logical and to the point in their approach. Various digests have been
composed from 700 to 1700 AD.

D. Customs
Most of the Hindu law is based on customs and practices followed by the people all across the country. Even smrutis have given
importance to customs. They have held customs as transcendent law and have advised the Kings to give decisions based on
customs after due religious consideration. Customs are of four types:

1. Local Customs - These are the customs that are followed in a given geographical area.  In the case of Subbane vs
Nawab, Privy Council observed that a custom gets it force due to the fact that due to its observation for a long time in
a locality, it has obtained the force of law.
2. Family Customs - These are the customs that are followed by a family from a long time.  These are applicable to
families where ever they live. They can be more easily abandoned that other customs. In the case of Soorendranath
vs Heeramonie and Bikal vs Manjura, Privy Council observed that customs followed by a family have long been
recognized as Hindu law.
3. Caste and Community Customs - These are the customs that are followed by a particular cast or community. It is
binding on the members of that community or caste. By far, this is one of the most important source of laws. For
example, most of the law in Punjab belongs to this type. Custom to marry brother's widow among the Jats is also of
this type.
4. Guild Customs - These are the customs that are followed by traders.

Requirements for a valid custom

1. Ancient : Ideally, a custom is valid if it has been followed from hundreds of years. There is no definition of
ancientness, however, 40yrs has been determined to be a ancient enough. A custom cannot come into existence by
agreement. It has to be existing from long before. Thus, a new custom cannot be recognized. Therefore, a new form
of Hindu marriage was not recognized in Tamil Nadu.
In the case of Rajothi vs Selliah, a Self Respecter’s Cult started a movement under which traditional ceremonies were
 substituted with simple ceremonies for marriage that did not involve Shastric rites. HC held that in modern times, no
one is free to create a law or custom, since that is a function of legislature.
2. Continuous: It is important that the custom is being followed continuously and has not been abandoned. Thus, a
custom may be 400 yrs old but once abandoned, it cannot be revived. 
3. Certain: The custom should be very clear in terms of what it entails. Any amount of vagueness will cause confusion
and thus the custom will be invalid. The one alleging a custom must prove exactly what it is.
4. Reasonable: There must be some reasonableness and fairness in the custom. Though what is reasonable depends on
the current time and social values.
5. Not against morality: It should not be morally wrong or repugnant. For example, a custom to marry one's
granddaughter has been held invalid. 
In the case of Chitty vs. Chitty 1894, a custom that permits divorce by mutual consent and by payment of expenses of
marriage by one party to another was held to be not immoral.  In the case of Gopikrishna vs. Mst Jagoo 1936 a
custom that dissolves the marriage and permits a wife to remarry upon abandonment and desertion of husband was
held to be not immoral.
6. Not against public policy: If a custom is against the general good of the society, it is held invalid. For example,
adoption of girl child by nautch girls has been held invalid. In the case of Mathur vs Esa, a custom among dancing
women permitting them to adopt one or more girls was held to be void because it was against public policy.
7. Not against any law: If a custom is against any statutory law, it is invalid. Codification of Hindu law has abrogated
most of the customs except the ones that are expressly saved. In the case of Prakash vs Parmeshwari, it was held that
law mean statutory law.

Proof of Custom
The burden of proving a custom is on the person who alleges it. Usually, customs are proved by instances. In the case
of Prakash vs Parmeshwari, it was held that one instance does not prove a custom. However, in the case of Ujagar vs Jeo, it
was held that if a custom has been brought to notice of the court repeated, no further proof is required.
existence of a custom can also be proved through documentary evidence such as in Riwaz-i-am. Several treaties exist that detail
customary laws of Punjab.

Usage and Custom

The term custom and usage is commonly used in commercial law, but "custom" and "usage" can be distinguished. A usage is a
repetition of acts whereas custom is the law or general rule that arises from such repetition. A usage may exist without a
custom, but a custom cannot arise without a usage accompanying it or preceding it. Usage derives its authority from the assent
of the parties to a transaction and is applicable only to consensual arrangements. Custom derives its authority from its adoption
into the law and is binding regardless of any acts of assent by the parties. In modern law, however, the two principles are often
merged into one by the courts.

Modern Sources
Hindu law has been greatly influenced by the British rule. While it might seem that the British brought with them the modern
concepts of equity and justice, these concepts existed even in dharamashastras albeit in a different form. Narada and
Katyayana have mentioned the importance of dharma (righteousness) in delivering justice. However, we did not have a practice
of recording the cases and judgments delivered. So it was not possible to apply stare decisis. This process started from the
British rule.

The following are the modern sources of Hindu law:

1. Equity, Justice, and Good conscience 

Equity means fairness in dealing. Modern judicial systems greatly rely on being impartial. True justice can only be delivered
through equity and good conscience.  In a situation where no rule is given, a sense of 'reasonableness' must prevail. According
to Gautama, in such situation, the decision should be given that is acceptable to at least ten people who are knowledgeable in
shastras. Yagyavalkya has said that where ever there are conflicting rules, the decision must be based on 'Nyaya'.
This principle has been followed by the privy council while deciding cases.

2. Precedent
The doctrine of stare decisis started in India from the British rule. All cases are now recorded and new cases are decided based
on existing case laws.Today, the judgment of SC is binding on all courts across India and the judgment of HC is binding on all
courts in that state.

3. Legislation 
In modern society, this is the only way to bring in new laws. The parliament, in accordance with the needs society, constitutes
new laws. For example, a new way of performing Hindu marriages in Tamil Nadu that got rid of rituals and priests was rejected
by the SC on the basis that new customs cannot be invented. However, TN later passed an act that recognized these marriages.
Also, most of the Hindu laws have now been codified as mentioned in the beginning.

Application of Hindu Law

A precise definition of Hinduism does not exist. Hence, it is impossible to define a fixed criteria for determining who is a Hindu.
So a negative definition of 'who is not a Hindu' is used. Further, in this land, several religions have been born and they they
follow the same customs and practices. So it cannot be said that Hindu Law can be applied only to people who are Hindus by
religion. Due to these reasons, in general, the following people are considered to be Hindu with respect to application of Hindu
Law. 

1. Hindu by Religion - A person who is Hindu, Jain, Bauddha, or Sikh by religion. In Shastri v Muldas SC AIR 1961, SC has
held that various sub sects of Hindus such as Swaminarayan, Satsangis, Arya Samajis are also Hindus by religion
because they follow the same basic concept of Hindu Philosophy. Converts and Reconverts are also Hindus. SC, in the
case of Peerumal v Poonuswami AIR 1971, has held that a person can be a Hindu if after expressing the intention of
becoming a Hindu, follows the customs of the caste, tribe, or community, and the community accepts him.
In Mohandas vs Dewaswan board AIR 1975, Kerala HC has held that a mere declaration and actions are enough for
becoming a Hindu.
2. Hindu by Birth - A person who is born of Hindu parents. If only one parent is a Hindu, the person can be a Hindu if
he/she has been raised as a Hindu. In Sapna vs State of kerala, Kerala HC,  the son of Hindu father and Christian
mother was held to be a Christian.
3. Persons who are not Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Parsee by religion.
4. Persons who are not governed by any other religious law will be governed by Hindu Law.

Constitution of India and the Enactments

under the Hindu Law
Presently, Hindu Law is applied through the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956;
and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Constitutional enactments are:

 Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937

 Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Impact of Hindu Law Enactments in Fundamental Rights

Several principles of Hindu Law have been held invalid on the ground that
they infringe the Fundamental Rights. For example, the rule of Damdupat is
hit by Article 15(1) of the Constitution and as such would be void under
Article 13(1).

Schools of Hindu Law

School means rules and principles of Hindu Law which are divided into opinion. It is not
codified. There are two Schools of Hindu Law- (a) Mitakshara (b) Dayabhaga.

Mitakshara School prevails throughout India except in Bengal. It is a running commentary on

the code of Yagnavalkya. Mitakshara is an orthodox School whereas the Dayabhaga is Reformist
School.

The Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools differed on important issues as regards the rules of
inheritance. However, this branch of the law is now codified by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
which has dissolved the differences between the two. Today, the main difference between
them is on joint family system.

Mitakshara- Rights in the joint family property is acquired by birth, and as a rule, females have
no right of succession to the family property. The right to property passes by survivorship to the
other male members of the family.

Dayabhaga- Rights in the joint family property are acquired by inheritance or by will, and the
share of a deceased male member goes to his widow in default of a closed heir.

Differences between the two Schools in Coparcenary-

Mitakshara Dayabhaga
i) Right of a son by birth in the ancestral i) A son is entitled to his ancestral property
property equal to the interest of his father. only on the death of his father. The father is
the absolute owner of his property in his
lifetime.
ii) A son becomes coparcener right after his ii) A son becomes coparcener by death of his
birth. His right is applicable to the property father. This right is not available within the
of his grandfather and grand-grandfather. property of his father, grandfather or grand-
 grandfather.
iii) Everyone is entitled to the property as a iii) Everyone’s share is defined. There is
unit. Their shares are not defined. They have tenancy-in-common.
only the commodity of ownership. There is
joint-tenancy.
iv) One cannot transfer his share to the third iv) One can transfer his share.
party.
v) The joint-property can be partitioned. In v) As the shares are defined, one can easily
that case, it will be partitioned as it was in partition with his share.
case of the father.

Differences between the two Schools in Succession-

Mitakshara- Property of a deceased Hindu is partitioned into two ways as the property is of two
types- (a) Ancestor’s property, (b) Separate property.

Ancestor’s property is partitioned in accordance to the Rules of Survivorship. But a Separate

property is partitioned to the descendants.

Dayabhaga- Property is of two types- (a) Joint, (b) Separate. The descendants inherits the
property whatever type it is.

Mitakshara- In default of close heir, brother and immediate survivors inherit, the wife does not
inherit.

Dayabhaga- If coparcener dies, his widow will get the property in default of a close heir but she
cannot alienate.

Mitakshara- The order of heirs is decided by mereness of blood.

Dayabhaga- The order of heirs is decided by the competence to offer Pinda and Sraddho to the
deceased.

Effect of migration

A person follows the school of his area. But if he migrates to another place, he will follow the
School of that locality. This has been decided in various cases-
Gope v. Manjura Govalin- The burden of proving migration lies on him who pleads it. The
original place of a family can be inferred from the chief characteristics of that family.

Keshavarao v. Swadeshrao, 1938- Migration means leaving to another place forever. But if a

place is divided into two administrative area, that will not be regarded as migration.

Moolchand v. Mrs. Amrita Bai- A person migrates will all of his personal laws. Personal law
unlike local law moves with whom he covers.

Notraz v. Subba Raya- A person can be given an option to give up the law of the old place and
adopt the new one.

Critical Comments
In the past, due to the vast size of the country, various kinds of customs prevailed. Further, due to lack of effective
communication, there were several contradictions among the practices and the judgment delivered. Thus, the country went on
the way to being divided. Instead of becoming the law of the land (lex-loci), Hindu Law became the law of a person. However,
this can only be an excuse for the past. Today, because of media and communication, judgement delivered in one place is felt in
another. A practice or custom followed in a village can be repugnant to people in cities. We must take advantage of this
situation and put the country on the course of a unified law. Instead of being a country of personal laws, we should true have a
single law of the land. Time is ripe for implementing article 44. This will ensure the future unity and integrity of our country.