Unit V — Wills (ISA), Family Courts & UCC

“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” — Article 44, Constitution of India

Wills under the Indian Succession Act, 1925

A will is “the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death” (S.2(h), ISA 1925). The Act draws a sharp line between two kinds.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Wills under ISA 1925"]:::root
    ROOT --> UNPRIV["Unprivileged Will<br/>(Section 63)"]:::unpriv
    ROOT --> PRIV["Privileged Will<br/>(Sections 65-66)"]:::priv
    UNPRIV --> U1["Testator must SIGN<br/>(or mark, or direct another)"]:::req
    UNPRIV --> U2["Minimum 2 witnesses<br/>required"]:::req
    UNPRIV --> U3["Witnesses attest in<br/>the testator's presence"]:::req
    UNPRIV --> U4["Witness who is also legatee:<br/>will valid BUT legacy void<br/>(Section 67)"]:::warn
    PRIV --> P1["Soldier, Airman,<br/>Mariner in service"]:::who
    PRIV --> P2["Can be ORAL"]:::priv_feat
    PRIV --> P3["No witnesses required"]:::priv_feat
    PRIV --> P4["Unsigned will valid"]:::priv_feat
    PRIV --> P5["Oral will: survives<br/>1 month after service ends"]:::priv_feat

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
    classDef unpriv fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef priv fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
    classDef req fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#856404,color:#000;
    classDef warn fill:#F8D7DA,stroke:#721C24,color:#000;
    classDef who fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
    classDef priv_feat fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

An unprivileged will must be signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence (S.63). A witness who is also a beneficiary does not void the will, but the legacy to that witness fails (S.67). A privileged will — for a soldier, airman, or mariner in active service — relaxes every formality: it may be oral or written, unsigned, and unwitnessed (In re Goods of Limond, 1940), because such persons may have no access to lawyers in the field. Void bequests (e.g., to an unborn person not answering S.113–114, or for an unlawful purpose) fail, and a legacy may be lost by ademption where the specific subject-matter no longer exists at the testator’s death.

The Family Courts Act, 1984

By the 1970s matrimonial disputes were clogging ordinary courts and being tried in an adversarial spirit ill-suited to families. The Family Courts Act, 1984 created specialised, conciliation-first courts.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Family Courts Act, 1984"]:::root
    ROOT --> OBJ["Object: Conciliation +<br/>speedy settlement of<br/>family disputes"]:::obj
    ROOT --> JURIS["Jurisdiction (Section 7)"]:::branch
    ROOT --> PROC["Special Procedure"]:::branch
    JURIS --> J1["Matrimonial causes<br/>(divorce, nullity,<br/>judicial separation)"]:::juris
    JURIS --> J2["Maintenance &<br/>alimony"]:::juris
    JURIS --> J3["Child custody &<br/>guardianship"]:::juris
    JURIS --> J4["Matrimonial property"]:::juris
    PROC --> P1["Promote settlement first"]:::proc
    PROC --> P2["In-camera proceedings"]:::proc
    PROC --> P3["Welfare officers &<br/>counsellors"]:::proc
    PROC --> P4["Advocate representation<br/>may be restricted (S.13)"]:::proc
    PROC --> P5["Appeals to High Court"]:::proc

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
    classDef obj fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
    classDef branch fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef juris fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#856404,color:#000;
    classDef proc fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

State governments must establish Family Courts in towns with a population over one million (S.3), with preference given to women judges and persons experienced in social work (S.4). Their Section 7 jurisdiction covers matrimonial causes, matrimonial property, maintenance, custody and guardianship. The procedure is deliberately non-technical: the court must attempt settlement first, may sit in camera, uses welfare officers and counsellors, may restrict the right to a lawyer (S.13), and its orders are appealable to the High Court — jurisdiction over these matters being exclusive (K. A. Abdul Jaleel v. T. A. Shahida, 2003; Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, 2002).

The Uniform Civil Code — Article 44

A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would replace the separate personal laws of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis with one common law on marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Uniform Civil Code<br/>(Article 44)"]:::root
    ROOT --> ART["Article 44 = DPSP<br/>(Directive only;<br/>not enforceable)"]:::art
    ROOT --> FOR["Arguments FOR"]:::branch
    ROOT --> AGAINST["Arguments AGAINST"]:::branch
    FOR --> F1["National integration<br/>+ equality"]:::for
    FOR --> F2["Gender justice<br/>(remove discriminatory<br/>personal laws)"]:::for
    FOR --> F3["SC's repeated call:<br/>Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal,<br/>Vallamattom"]:::for
    AGAINST --> A1["Religious freedom<br/>(Article 25)"]:::against
    AGAINST --> A2["Cultural diversity<br/>+ minority rights"]:::against
    AGAINST --> A3["Political & practical<br/>difficulty"]:::against

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000;
    classDef art fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#856404,color:#000;
    classDef branch fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef for fill:#D4EDDA,stroke:#155724,color:#000;
    classDef against fill:#F8D7DA,stroke:#721C24,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Article 44 is a Directive Principle — a constitutional goal, not an enforceable right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly urged Parliament to act: Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) (Article 44 “cannot remain a dead letter”), and Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Pereira (2019) (citing Goa’s common civil code). In 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state to enact a UCC. The arguments for (national integration, gender justice, Articles 14/15/44) sit against those against (religious freedom under Article 25, cultural plurality, minority rights) — leaving the UCC constitutionally aspirational but politically contested.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A soldier in active service writes his will on a scrap of paper and signs it, but no witnesses attest it. After his death the document is challenged for want of attestation. Is the will valid?

I — Issue

Whether a soldier’s signed but unwitnessed will is valid under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

R — Rule

• An unprivileged will under Section 63 requires the testator’s signature and attestation by at least two witnesses
• A privileged will under Sections 65–66 — available to a soldier, airman, or mariner in active service — needs no witnesses, and may even be oral or unsigned

A — Analysis

The decoy is the missing attestation, which would be fatal to an ordinary (unprivileged) will under Section 63 — and a student who applies only Section 63 will wrongly hold the will invalid. But the testator is a soldier in active service, squarely within the privileged-will exception. The law relaxes formalities for such persons precisely because they may be in the field, far from lawyers and witnesses. A signed written will by a soldier on active service is therefore valid without any witnesses; the absence of attestation is simply not a defect for a privileged will.

C — Conclusion

The will is valid under Sections 65–66, ISA 1925, as a privileged will. No witnesses were required, and the soldier’s signed writing takes effect.

📄 The full PDF bundle has more for Unit V — including void-bequest and ademption problems, construction-of-wills rules, the Curator’s appointment and powers, full Family Courts Act coverage, the UCC 16-mark essay blueprint with the Uttarakhand 2024 development, and the complete Master Case List. Get the bundle — ₹149