Custom — A Living Modern Source — Hindu Law (Family Law I) Notes

Sources of Hindu Law — Modern (Customs)

In Mathur v. Mathur (1932), the Privy Council upheld a local custom in a Rajput community that barred a widow from inheriting property — even though it contradicted the Mitakshara. The court said: where a custom is ancient, certain, and continuous, it overrides the written law. That principle is now codified: Section 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines “custom” as a source of law.

What is Custom?

Custom [Achara in Sanskrit] is a rule of conduct that a particular community has observed consistently over a long period and has come to regard as binding. It is a modern source of Hindu law, alongside legislation and judicial decisions.

Section 3(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: “‘Custom’ and ‘usage’ signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family, provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy.”

In Simple Terms: A custom is a long-practised local rule that has hardened into law — but only if it meets strict legal requirements.

Requirements of a Valid Custom

For a custom to be legally enforceable, it must satisfy all of the following:

Burden of proof: The party relying on a custom must prove it. Once a custom is judicially recognised, courts take judicial notice of it.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Valid Custom — Requirements"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Antiquity<br/>(Ancient, time immemorial)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Continuity<br/>(Uninterrupted practice)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Uniformity<br/>(Consistent observance)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Certainty<br/>(Definite, not vague)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["Reasonableness<br/>(Not grossly unjust)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> F["Not Against<br/>Public Policy or Law"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Mathur v. Mathur (1932) — Privy Council: a custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and not against public policy to have the force of law.
• Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo (1959) — Supreme Court held that the onus of proving a custom is on the party who relies upon it; courts do not presume a custom exists.
• Mirasa v. Mirasa (1974) — A custom that is contrary to the statutory provision under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot prevail.

📋 16-MARK ESSAY BLUEPRINT

• STAGE 1 ──► Hook + Roadmap: Open with Mathur v. Mathur — custom overriding Mitakshara. State you will cover: definition, requirements, types, and how custom relates to other sources.
• STAGE 2 ──► Definition: Quote Section 3(a), HMA 1955. Distinguish “custom” from “usage.”
• STAGE 3 ──► Requirements: Go through all eight in a structured list — antiquity, continuity, uniformity, certainty, reasonableness, public policy, not against law, compulsory observance.
• STAGE 4 ──► Burden of proof + judicial notice: Cite Ujagar Singh.
• STAGE 5 ──► Verdict: Custom is a living source; post-codification it survives where Acts expressly preserve it. Close with Mirasa.

🚨 FACT-PATTERN RISK ALERT

Scenario: In a community in Rajasthan, there exists a practice since 1850 that daughters cannot inherit ancestral property. ‘X’ dies intestate in 2024. His daughter ‘D’ claims a share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The family resists, citing the community custom. Decide.

• I — ISSUE: Whether a community custom excluding daughters from inheritance overrides the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005.
• R — RULE: Section 6, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — daughters are coparceners by birth; custom cannot override a statutory right. Also: Mirasa v. Mirasa (1974).
• A — ANALYSIS: The custom, even if ancient and continuous, is contrary to the express statutory provision of the 2005 Amendment. A custom opposed to a statute has no force of law.
• C — CONCLUSION: ‘D’ succeeds. She is entitled to an equal share as a coparcener. The custom fails as it is contrary to law.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Hindu Law topics