Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 5 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Family Law I (Hindu Law) 2022 Apr Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Family Law I (Hindu Law)

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5

2022 Apr Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

First published on munotes.in on 2 November 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2022 Apr examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Apr examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 3 hours · Total marks 80 · 20 questions answered

Instructions printed on the paper

N.B. (1) Answer all questions compulsorily. (2) Answer should be either in English or Kannada completely.

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

Q1

Unit I

(a)"A clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law" - Comment.[10]

Answer

For full marks, cover: where the statement comes from (Collector of Madura, the Ramnad adoption case) and what it means; why custom could prevail over the Smriti texts (the texts themselves honoured custom; law grew from practice; diversity of communities); what "clear proof" requires (ancient, invariable, certain, reasonable; Ramalakshmi Ammal; judicial notice in Ujagar Singh); examples of custom overriding the texts (sapinda and cross-cousin marriage, customary divorce, adoption beyond the textual limits); the limits of the rule (public policy, statute, and custom cannot create an offence, Surajmani Stella Kujur); the position under the codifying Acts; a conclusion.

Where the statement comes from

The statement comes from the Privy Council's judgment in Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy, (1868) 12 MIA 397, often called the Ramnad case.

The Zamindar of Ramnad died without a son. He had not authorised his widow to adopt. She adopted a boy with the consent of her husband's sapindas, his near male kinsmen. The adoption was challenged on the ground that the texts did not allow a widow to adopt without her husband's authority.

The Privy Council upheld the adoption under the Dravida school. In the course of its judgment it laid down a rule. Under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law. The Collector's appeal was dismissed.

What the statement means

The written texts of Hindu law are the Smritis and the commentaries on them. Usage, or custom, is the practice a community has followed for a long time as law. The statement means that where a proved custom and a text conflict, the custom wins. The text gives way to what the people have actually treated as law.

Why custom could prevail over the texts

The texts themselves honoured custom. The Smritis told the king to respect the usages of countries, castes and families. Manu called approved custom (achara) the highest dharma. So giving effect to custom was itself faithful to the texts.
Law grew from practice. Much of the Smriti law began as the custom of particular communities. The texts recorded custom more than they created law.
India's diversity. A single text could not fit every region and caste. Custom allowed the law to fit the community it governed.

What "clear proof" requires

The rule protects only custom that is clearly proved. A custom must be ancient, continuous, invariable, certain and reasonable.

Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Sivanantha Perumal Sethurayar, (1872) 14 MIA 570. A special family custom of succession to a zamindari in Tinnevelly was set up. The Privy Council held that special usages modifying the ordinary law must be ancient and invariable. They must also be established by clear and unambiguous evidence. The custom pleaded failed, so the ordinary law applied.

The word "clear" in the Ramnad rule therefore matters. A doubtful or recent practice does not displace the texts.

Judicial notice. A custom that the courts have recognised again and again need not be proved afresh. In Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, AIR 1959 SC 1041, a collateral relied on a general Punjab custom excluding sisters, recorded in Rattigan's Digest. The Supreme Court held that every custom must ordinarily be proved, unless repeated recognition allows judicial notice. Rattigan's statement had been contradicted too often. So it was not noticed, and the sister succeeded under Hindu law.

Examples of custom overriding the texts

Marriage within the prohibited degrees. The texts forbade marriage between sapindas. In many communities of south India, custom allowed a man to marry his maternal uncle's daughter. Where proved, that custom prevailed. Section 5(iv) and (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 still allow such a marriage where the custom of each party permits it.
Divorce. The texts treated marriage as indissoluble. Many communities had customary divorce. Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act preserves "any right recognised by custom" to obtain a divorce.

Adoption. The texts limited whom one could adopt. Custom in some communities allowed the adoption of a married person or one past childhood. Section 10(iii) and (iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 still allow this where custom permits.
The Ramnad case itself, where a widow's adoption with the kinsmen's consent was upheld.

The limits of the rule

Public policy and morality. A custom that is immoral or opposed to public policy is void, however clearly proved. The statutory definition now requires that the rule be "not unreasonable or opposed to public policy".

Statute. Custom cannot prevail against an Act of the legislature. Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act give those Acts overriding effect. Custom survives only where they expressly save it.
Custom cannot create a crime. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, AIR 2001 SC 938. Both spouses belonged to notified Scheduled Tribes, so the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply. The wife prosecuted her husband for bigamy, relying on a tribal custom of monogamy. The Supreme Court held that no custom can create an offence. A custom may decide civil status, but it must be pleaded and proved. She had not proved a custom making the second marriage void. So the charge of bigamy failed.

The position today

The rule in the Ramnad case was a rule about custom and the old texts. Today the main question is custom and statute, and there statute prevails. But where the Acts are silent, as in the joint family, or where they save custom expressly, the old rule still works. A clearly proved custom still outweighs the texts on those matters.

Conclusion. The statement is the Privy Council's rule in Collector of Madura. Where a custom is clearly proved, it outweighs the written texts of Hindu law. This is because the texts themselves honoured custom and the law grew from practice. The custom must be ancient, invariable, certain and reasonable, and strictly proved, as Ramalakshmi Ammal requires. Proved custom has upheld cross-cousin marriages, customary divorce and wider adoption. But no custom can stand against public policy or statute, or create a crime, as Surajmani Stella Kujur holds.

B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Family Law I (Hindu Law) 2022 Apr Question Paper with Solutions

Contents