Special marriage act - intricacies - please solve it for me

1. An unborn person E has no vested right under provisions which have been repealed prior to his birth (I am assuming here E was not born by 1976 when such provisions were repealed) read with a probate case already in Court where his father B read with C and D are parties thereto. In this case, therefore, the question of a vested right of the son E being taken away by enactment of S. 21 A in the Special Marriage Act does not arise for consideration even if in ner future E marries a Muslim or Christian and only thing later that he has to lead evidence thereof is that he is “Hindu” for a simple reason joint family concept is known only to “Hindu Law” and none other.

2. When in future E chose the secular form of marriage under the Special Marriage Act to marry in instance facts a Muslim bride, one of the things he says he has in mind is that his children and he will also succeed the joint family properties whose probate case party his father B is currently arreyed in, which is pretty evident from your round-robin query before us, if such a contingency arises, in the secular form postulated by the Indian Succession Act will apply. Therefore, in effect the enactment of S. 21A of the Special Marriage Act is sought to be given retrospective operation. Successions or possible chances of succession cannot be regarded as a right, much less a vested right right now. It is only an expectancy.

3. No legislation can be considered as having retrospective effect unless it is highly expressly so stated or by necessary intendment the provisions have to be construed as having retrospective effect. That question really does not arise for consideration in the present query. No right which had arisen earlier in the present query has been adversely effected by the enactment of S. 21A of the Special Marriage Act s my view to present query unless I read your query in different light !.

Hence I repeat that a right to succeed to a property which may arise in future is not a right in present that is at all enforceable and it certainly did not exist in the present case in the case of B and his son E when S. 21A was enacted.

Dear tajobsindia,

I would first thank you for the detailed reply, but, I would beg your pardon, I was not able to grasp the answer completely.

Please, if you could explain it in layman terms as it was too profound and technical for a person like me.

As far as I could comprehend, you are trying to convey that E might get the inherited property but he might have to fight it in court for it, because it would be a 'retrospective' kind of decision!!!! That means that the provisions for the rule to be enforced are not stated clearly? Also, you are trying to say that E would just have to show that he's a "Hindu" in order to get that property according to "hindu law" if he marries a muslim, but that too is not the case as he is marrying undder the "Special Marriage Act".

Some facts that you require would be:

1. Both the hindu boy(E) and his beloved to-be-bride G(muslim girl) have been born after 1976. 

2. 'A' died in the year 1997.

3. You can assume that B would definitely get his share of property in the probate case.

There arise two scenarios,

(a) The case is solved before they get married

(b) The case is solved after they get married.

Originally posted by : egalitarian_secular
	Dear tajobsindia, I was not able to grasp the answer completely. Please, if you could explain it in layman terms as it was too profound and technical for a person like me. Please state it in a more simple way.

yes tajobs.even i cud not understand anyth.please explain in simple english,which i have trying to convey to u since times immemorial...

E will get nothing...E's marriage will severe him from the ancestral property....

E's share will be from what B will get from A

If E wants a share, he should wait for the resolution then ask for a partition in the undivided family of B, E and F(wife if any)...

Thanx..

Thanks for the reply Chetan.

1. So, you mean that in case 'E' marries a muslim girl now and his father B gets his share of inherited property 2 years later(say) after winning the court case, then even if B would want to give the property to E, he would not be able to do so? Isn't it very strange in the "venerated Indian Democracy".

Or is it that,  E would lose the right to ask for it as an "inherited property" but can be given this property as a "gift" OR in the form of a "will" from B? 

2. Please also elaborate on -  you also said that E would have to wait for the case to get resolved. In case, B wins the case now and then E marries the muslim girl, then what would be the scenario considering the above written aspects?

Thanks a lot in advance 

1.  The latter

2.He gets nothing if he marries undivided....

Thanx