Mohammed Salim (dead) through LRs v Shamsudeen (dead) through LRs
Rule established
A marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is neither valid nor void but irregular (fasid) under Muhammadan law. An irregular marriage subsists until terminated in accordance with law, so the child born of such a marriage is legitimate exactly as the child of a valid marriage is, and is entitled to claim a share in the father's property. The wife in such a marriage is entitled to her dower but does not inherit from the husband.
Facts
- Mohammed Ilias, a Muslim, first married Saidat; there was no issue of that marriage. He then married Valliamma, who was a Hindu at the time of the marriage. The marriage took place in the 1940s, before the Special Marriage Act 1954 was available. A son was born of that union. The dispute, which reached the Supreme Court through the Kerala High Court, was whether that son was legitimate and entitled to a share in his father's property.
Issue
- Whether a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is void or merely irregular, and whether the child of such a marriage is legitimate and entitled to inherit from the father.
Held
- Under Muhammadan law a marriage with an idolatress or fire worshipper is not void and not regular, but irregular (fasid). An irregular marriage subsists until it is terminated in accordance with law. Consequently the child born of that marriage is legitimate in the same way as the child of a valid marriage, and is entitled to claim a share in the father's property. The wife is entitled to her dower but, on the Court's reasoning, does not inherit from the husband. The decree of the Kerala High Court was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification of the marriage determines the consequences, and the three categories carry different consequences: | Category | Status | Effect on the child | Effect on the wife | |:--|:--|:--|:--| | Sahih (valid) | Fully effective | Legitimate | Inherits, and entitled to dower | | Fasid (irregular) | Subsists until terminated | Legitimate | Does not inherit, but entitled to dower | | Batil (void) | No legal effect at all | Illegitimate | No inheritance, no dower as of right | Because an irregular marriage has legal existence until terminated, the child's legitimacy is unaffected by the irregularity. The disability attaches to the wife's succession rights alone.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading modern authority on fasid marriages and the single most useful case for the void versus irregular distinction, which is a standing favourite in this paper.
- Essential where a problem question involves an interfaith marriage predating the Special Marriage Act 1954, or an interfaith marriage not solemnised under that Act.
- The examinable point students most often miss: the child and the wife are treated differently. Say expressly that the child is legitimate and inherits, while the wife takes dower but not a share.
- Contrast with a batil marriage, for example one within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, where the union has no legal effect and the issue is illegitimate.
- Note the Sunni and Shia divergence. The category of irregular marriage is a Sunni (Hanafi) classification. Shia law does not recognise the intermediate category, so a marriage that a Sunni would call irregular is void under Shia law.
Source
Source: (2019) 4 SCC 130; judgment dated 22 January 2019, Supreme Court of India, on appeal from the Kerala High Court. Bench and holding verified on audit of 12 August 2026. The authoring judge is not separately identified in the sources consulted and is therefore not stated.
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.