Section 69 provides for automatic revocation of Wills made by Christians, upon their marriage. This provision is not applicable to Hindus due to its non-inclusion in Schedule III of the Act, which contains the provisions applicable to Hindus.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar upheld the provision, which was challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary in application to Hindus and Christians.

It reasoned that Section 69 has a laudable object and it is not unfair, unfavourable or prejudicial merely because of non-applicability to Hindus:

"The mere fact that the statutory provision containing a laudable object as noted, was not extended to Hindus, by itself, shall not be a ground to hold it as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

While deciding three connected petitions, including a suo motu civil reference to examine the validity of the provision, the Court delved deep into the legislative intent behind making it non-applicable to Hindus.

It observed that Hindu law continued to secure the rights of a married woman with her being entitled to maintenance from husband and his assets upon marriage as per Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. However, there is no such corresponding provision applicable to Christians, making Section 69 crucial in protecting their new family, the Court noted.

“the object underlying Section 69 is to protect the new family. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act sufficiently takes care of the same…Conspicuously there is no similar personal law for Christians imposing such obligation,” the Court explained.

The Bench also observed that the Indian Succession Act provisions have only limited application when it comes to Hindus. It noted that intestate succession is governed by the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956 and that with respect to wills, certain provisions of the ISA that are mentioned in Schedule III, would be applicable.

The Court referred to Sections 69 [Revocation of will by testator's marriage], 57 [Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc.] and 70 ISA [Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil]. It then noted that Section 69 is not included in the Schedule III and Section 57 makes it clear that marriage does not revoke a will or codicil made by Hindus.

Next, the Court noted that Section 70 providing for the circumstances in which will or codicil may be revoked, including by marriage, though included in Schedule III, it is with a specific modification that the revocation by marriage is not applicable to Hindus.

The Court came to the conclusion that the legislative intent was clear in not making the provision on automatic revocation of Will upon marriage applicable to Hindus.

It examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Hindu Wills Act that was published in the Gazette of India dated 02.10.1869 and noted that the same provided the reason for not making the corresponding provision in the erstwhile Indian Succession Act not applicable to Hindus:

“the legislature noticed that the concept of Will was practically foreign to Hindu law. Further, they had due regard to the societal set up and practices which were then prevalent. They were very cautious in interfering with the then existing custom and sentiments of the people. A reader would be curious as to why such a provision,…which apparently has a benevolent object/purpose viz. the protection of a newly formed family, was not made applicable to Hindus…the legislature had due consideration of the fact that, polygamy was prevalent in the community and hence a marriage may not create such a change in the testator's mindset that he would not choose to adhere to a Will previously executed by him.”

It opined that the reason for not making the provision applicable even after the prohibition of polygamy was because there is sufficient protection granted to Hindu wives on marriage.

Counsel for the petitioner in OP(C) No. 903 of 2026/ the respondents in WP(C) No. 27213 of 2017: K. Shaj, Beena N. Kartha, Arun Chand, Bharat Vijay P., Kevin James, Akash Joshi, Minu V.A., Gopika Gopal, Archana P.P., Ren Shibu, Shehroon Patel A.K., Issac Melvin B.O., Alvin Joseph, Riya Philo Johnson, Gishma P. S., Sajie Shankar, Mary Helen A. G., Sajju S., Renjith George, Varsha K.A., Nikhil Krishna A.S., Joel Kennath Johnson, Febin Fathima, Ishma T.B., Monsu Joseph George

Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 27213 of 2017: Varghese C.Kuriakose, P.J. Jose, Seenu Sadique

Counsel for the respondents in CR No. 1 of 2025: T. Krishnanunni (Sr.), K.S. Bharathan, Nivedhitha Prem V., Thareeq Anver K., Meena.A., Vinod Ravindranath, M.R. Mini, Ameera Jojo, Mariya Joseph, Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Stephen V. Thomas, Resmi G. Nair - Spl. Government Pleader