MARY ROY v. STATE OF KERALA (1986 AIR 1011, 1986 SCR
(1) 371)
Judgment Synopsis
Bhagwati CJ stated the points by delivering his judgment:-
1. No personal law can be prioritised above the Constitution of India, hence any act in an
area invalidates the significance of the provisions of the Constitution then such provision
shall be heldvoid.
2. It was further stated that the Travancore Succession Act, 1916 contravene the provision of
right to equality guaranteed under article 14 of the Indian constitution because of its
discriminatory nature towards the women and hence can't made applicable in the current
case.
3. Chapter 2 of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was held applicable over the
intestate succession.
4. In the view of this reason the law applicable on the region of Travancore relating to
succession shall be Indian Succession Act 1925 not Travancore Act 1916.
5. It was also believed that Kerala High Court’s judgment is in favour of Mrs. Mary Roy re-
establishing her possession over the said property was also held to have retrospective
effect.
6. The court further stated that the widowed mother will receive one third of the property of
her deceased husband, one-third shall be taken by Mrs. Mary Roy and the remaining with
one third property by her brother. So there would be no distinction to be made between
the daughter's and the son in the matter of succession.
7. The court also held that in case a man dies intestate and has no children or the widow his
or her property will be first taken by his father and in case of absence of father as well, his
mother brothers and sisters will take the share equally.