Merriam Webster defines the word ‘disown’ as a transitive verb2 which means to refuse to acknowledge something or someone as one’s own, repudiate any connection or identification with, or deny the validity or authority of the same, as such as, when a parent disowns their child, who has attained the age of majority, the parent essentially breaks all the familial bonds they share with the child.
The term disownment lacks a statutory definition within Indian law, and consequently, no legal rights or obligations arise in its favour or against it. The process of disowning a child does not entail any prescribed legal formalities, nor does it require compliance with procedural prerequisites before a recognized authority. It is generally recommended that a public notice of disownment be published in at least two newspapers—one in the local language and one in English—upon severing ties with a child. Other common methods of declaring disownment include issuing a public notice, executing a will, or filing a declaratory suit.
Nevertheless, a bedakhali (disownment notice) has no legal effect in altering or negating an individual’s inheritance rights over ancestral property. Disownment primarily entails disinheritance from the parent’s self-acquired property while also severing moral obligations, including maintaining a relationship, social recognition as a parent or guardian, and other forms of moral attachment. Under Indian succession laws, a child’s entitlement to ancestral property is a birthright that cannot be extinguished through a mere disownment notice which was upheld by the Apex Court in Aruna Oswal and Others3 whereby it was observed that ‘… Merely disowning a child by the father or the family is not going to deprive him or her of any right in the property to which they may otherwise be entitled, in accordance with the law.’4
Possible Procedure for Disownment:
- Public notice: A public notification serves as a formal announcement in specific legal proceedings, including probate, estate administration, and abandonment. Such notices are periodically required to inform relevant parties and the public of ongoing legal actions. In the case of Jaidev Beniwal and Another v. State of Haryana5, the petitioner had disowned his son through a public notice owing to the latter’s relationship with a woman of dubious character. According to Annexure P-12, the Executive Magistrate attested that the petitioner had disowned his son and disinherited him from his property. This affidavit was filed on June 24, 1997, almost immediately after the marriage ceremony, which was performed on April 18, 1997, and a publication was also made in newspapers.6
- Will: The unconditional legal declaration of an individual’s wishes, desire, choice, and willingness regarding their owned moveable, immoveable, corporeal or incorporeal properties, to be carried out after their death.
- Declaratory suit: A legal suit where the plaintiff asks the court to declare a right in his favour. According to Sections 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit usually lies when the plaintiff proves vide a declaration that he is entitled to any legal right or character as to any property.7
FAMILY ESTRANGEMENT V. DISINHERITANCE
1. Family Estrangement:
In his Family Systems Theory, Dr. Murray Bowen8 (1913-1990) proposed the concept of ‘emotional cut-off.’ The idea of ‘emotional cut-off’ effectively describes how people deal with unresolved emotions with their family members, which occasionally results in reducing or cutting down on emotional or social contact.
Family estrangement is similar to Bowen’s concept of emotional cut-off, argued Kylie Agllias.9 In her postulation, family estrangement is referred to as an unsatisfactory or extreme emotional distance between at least two family members, which can be attributed to a variety of factors, including incompatible beliefs and attachments, unmet expectations and life transitions, parental alienation, and ineffective communication patterns, inter alia.
Although there is no data on family estrangement in the Indian context, we may look at data produced in other jurisdictions on the subject. According to a national level survey10 conducted by Karl Pillemer, a Cornell University sociologist, as much as 27% of Americans live with some sort of family estrangement, which puts the number of estranged Americans somewhere around sixty-seven million people nationally.
A German research11 found that more than 10% of people over 40 had reported intergenerational conflict, of which, half said that they avoided the other person or stopped contact with them altogether. Another research from Australia12 found that 4.3% of older adults had little or no contact with their adult kids. The accurate data may be higher than the reported numbers because of the stigma attached to reporting estrangement and the difficulty in defining it.
1.1. Legal Perspective:
Drozd and Olesen13 claim that the Courts brought about the legal perspective of family estrangement to distinguish between parent-alienation syndrome and family estrangement to ensure they make an informed decision in divorce cases dealing with the custody of children.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘alienation’14 as withdrawal from an attachment, estrangement, alienation of affections, and ‘parental-alienation syndrome’15 as a condition where one parent manipulates a child to fear, hate, or betray the other parent.
Unlike alienation and parental-alienation syndrome, family estrangement does not have an awarded legal provision to it. It has been recognized by the courts of law merely for the minimal purpose of distinguishing its concepts with more legal recognition, such as parent-alienation syndrome.
2. Disinheritance:
Black’s Law Dictionary defines disinheritance as ‘The act by which an owner of an estate deprives a would-be heir of the expectancy to inherit the estate. A testator may expressly exclude or limit the right of a person or a class to inherit property that the person or class would have inherited through intestate succession, but only if the testator devises all the property to another.’16
Once the children have attained the age of majority, parents have the legal right to defer the inheritance of their legal heirs. Any person with a sound mind and mental ability can choose to leave out their legal heirs from their property. The most common reasons for disownment are divorce, estrangement, conflict over personal matters, etcetera.
Although the line of distinction between disinheritance or disownment is not very clear, it is an important one that does imply two things and warrants two different treatments in the eyes of the law; one is legal while the other is not.
PROCESS OF DISOWNMENT:
1. When can you disown a child?
This issue can be examined in two ways: A minor v. one who has attained majority.
1.1. Child is minor:
According to Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate can order a monthly allowance if a person with sufficient means fails to support his spouse, legitimate or illegitimate children; whether they are married or not, and his legitimate or illegitimate child who is mentally or physically disabled.
Explanation (a), to Section 125(1), defines a minor as a child of either gender, who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, is deemed not to have attained the age of majority.
The Indian Courts have upheld the provision provided under Section 125 in a catena of judgments. One such case is Shaheda Sarwar Khan v. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan and Others17, where the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 2,000.00 and Rs. 1,500.00 respectively to his wife and children as maintenance. According to the petitioner, he had divorced his wife, and according to the provisions of Muslim Personal Law, the wife was not entitled to maintenance after the iddat period. Assuming the same to be the correct position according to law, the husband still cannot disown his liability to maintain his child.
Thereafter, Hon’ble Justice R Lodha observed that “I have already held the husband guilty of civil contempt and the persistent defiance of the husband and consistent default by him in not complying with the order passed by this Court on April 3, 1998 and thereafter on September 2, 1998 and the fact that the husband is still not prepared to deposit/pay the maintenance to the wife as per this Court’s order, I am satisfied that the husband deserves to be dealt with sternly and punished with simple imprisonment for a term of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.”18
1.2. Child who has attained the age of majority:
1.2.1. Major child who is physically or mentally challenged.
In case of a child who has attained the age of majority under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, but is physically or mentally disabled, then such child must be maintained and supported by the parent(s) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the parent is legally required to support their children if they cannot do so because of their mental or physical impairment.
1.2.2. Major child who is mentally sound, and physically able.
If a child has attained majority and is physically and mentally capable, they can be disowned by the parent(s). However, the child will still retain their right to claim the ancestral property. This situation will be explored in detail.
As has been discussed earlier, regardless of whether the parent(s) have disowned their children, the children still reserve an option to stake a claim on the ancestral property. The right to such ancestral property can only be relinquished (giving up the property out of their own free will), and whenever relinquished, the offspring of such an individual shall not have any future claim over that property19 through a Relinquishment Deed or Release Deed which is mandatory to be registered.20
2. Exception:
There is no distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property for Christians, Muslims, and Parsees and all the matters related to succession and applies to Indian Christians, Jews, Parsees, Jains, and Buddhists are governed by Indian Succession Act, 1925.
In the case of intestate succession, the widow and all the children of the deceased inherit equally, and testate succession is separately dealt with in Part VI of the Act. Under the provisions provided under part VI, a man may, by will, bequeath his property to any person, thereby effectively disinheriting his children and widow. According to the position in Christianity, natural children can be disowned by way of will but not legally adopted children.21
HINDU PERSONAL LAW:
According to Hindu law, the property can be classified into two ways:
1. Ancestral property
Property that a Hindu inherits from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father. In Maktul v. Mst. Manbhari & Others22, the Supreme Court defined ancestral property as, “Ancestral property means, as regards sons, property inherited from a direct male lineal ancestor, and as regards collaterals, property inherited from a common ancestor.” The claim on the ancestral property was further explored in the case of Madanlal Pulchand Jain and Ors. v State of Maharashtra23 , where it was decided that each child has a right to an equal and independent share as his father, of the ancestral properties. This equal right can only be claimed after the father has received the ancestral property. Additionally, in the case of C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar24, it was held that property could not be considered ‘ancestral property’ if the father is the son or descendant of the original owner. If A is granted property by B, his father, as a gift deed, then the property is not ancestral, and A’s son C cannot claim it.
2. Self-acquired property
Property acquired in a person’s lifetime by using his resources or through legal division of ancestral property. Yajnavalkya states that ‘whatever is acquired by the coparcener himself without detriment to the father’s estate as a present from a friend or a gift at nuptials, does not appertain to the co-heirs.’25
The self-acquired property cannot be claimed by a disowned child, which was observed in the case of S. R. Batra v. Taruna Batra,26 where the respondent was married to the son of the appellants. The respondent moved in with her husband after the marriage, and she also lived in the home of appellant no. 2, the respondent’s mother-in-law. Because of a disagreement with her husband, the respondent moved to her parent’s home. Later on, she claimed that she attempted to enter the home of appellant no. 2, but the main gate was locked, and she was barred from entering. Hence, she filed a suit to obtain a mandatory injunction allowing her to enter the house. Here, the Apex Court carefully noted that India does not have a similar law to the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. In any case, rights under any law are only available against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.27 The complainant’s premises claimed her marital residence was owned by her mother-in-law and her in-laws, who had disowned their son, the complainant’s husband. Thus, she had no valid right to reside in the concerned premises.
In another instance before the Delhi High Court, it was observed that the facts of the case Smt. Raj Kumari v. Preeti Satija28 contained the classic elements of a husband trying to evade his responsibility upon marital discord. The husband allegedly disappeared and then was ‘disowned’ by his mother. The appellant’s mother-in-law filed the suit to dispose of her daughter-in-law and her grandchildren. She claimed that she had no relationship with either her son or daughter-in-law. She based her claim to ownership of the suit property on a will, and the daughter-in-law did not admit to the will. The Hon’ble Court observed that sons often move out or transfer property or ownership rights or shares in immovable assets at the onset of trouble or discord with wives. In such cases, the parents may ‘disown’ the son if the son leaves the common or joint property owned by one or both of his parents.
The Hon’ble Court further observed that, in reality, the strategy to ‘disown’ sons through public notices and advertisement is not to be taken lightly. Although, a mere proclamation does not have a dispositive legal effect, breaking all legally applicable familial ties. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property under Order XII, Rule 6, and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the plaintiff does not have any legal obligation or responsibility to care for the daughter-in-law (wife of a disowned son) under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Exception: In the case of Sachin v. Jhabbu Lal29, it was held that a son does not have any legal rights in the self-acquired property unless he can prove his contribution towards the acquisition of such property. It was also observed that, where the house was self-acquired by the parents, the children, whether married or not, have no legal right to live in that house. They can only live in such a home at their parents’ discretion for as long as the parents allow them. ‘Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.’30
MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW:
All property acquired by a Muslim in his lifetime, whether ancestral property from his father or self-acquired through his assets, can be amalgamated into ‘absolute property’ otherwise called ‘heritable property’ (can be utilized as interchangeable terms). Such absolute or heritable property follows similar guidelines, such as the rule of portrayal, rule of prohibition, rule of primogeniture, rule of vested legacy, and rule of spes successionis. Any lawful beneficiary can acquire such absolute or heritable property of their father after his death.
1. Concept of disownment in Muslim Law (aaqh):
Shariat does not allow for ‘disownment’ or ‘aaqh’ as it is believed that a disownment notice cannot end the blood connection between a parent, their children, or other family members. If the parents decide to end the cultural bond and disown their children, the blood bond persists over the idea of disownment and cannot simply be disposed of. The law of inheritance under the Muslim law regarding children and guardians depends on the unavoidable blood relationships; along these lines, the idea of disownment does not fit in.
The Commandments of Allah, as contained in Chapters II and IV of the Holy Quran:
1.1. Chapter 2
Verse 180 – “Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [is that he should make] a bequest for the parents and near relatives according to what is acceptable – a duty upon the righteous.”
Verse 181 – “But whoever changes the will after hearing it,31 the blame will only be on those who made the change. Indeed, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”
1.2. Chapter 4
Verse 7 – “For men, there is a share in what their parents and close relatives leave, and for women, there is a share in what their parents and close relatives leave—whether it is little or much. ‘These’ are obligatory shares.”
Verse 11 – “Allah commands you regarding your children: the share of the male will be twice that of the female.32 If you leave only two ‘or more’ females, their share is two-thirds of the estate. Nevertheless, if there is only one female, her share will be one-half. Each parent is entitled to one-sixth if you leave offspring.33 However, if you are childless and your parents are the only heirs, your mother will receive one-third.34 Nevertheless, if you leave siblings, your mother will receive one-sixth35—after fulfilling bequests and debts. 36 ˹Be fair to˺ your parents and children, as you do not ˹fully˺ know who is more beneficial to you.37 ‘This is an obligation from Allah. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”
Verse 12 – “And for you is half of what your wives leave if they have no child. However, if they have a child, you are one-fourth of what they leave, after any bequest they [may have] made or debt. Moreover, for them [i.e., the wives] is one-fourth if you leave no child. However, if you leave a child, then for them is an eighth of what you leave, after any bequest you [may have] made or debt. Furthermore, if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then a sixth in each of them. Nevertheless, if they are more than two, they share a third,38 after any bequest made or debt, as long as there is no detriment [caused].39 [This is] an ordinance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing and Forbearing.”
Verse 33 – “And for all, We have made heirs to what is left by parents and relatives. Furthermore, to those whom your oaths have bound [to you] – give them their share.40 Indeed Allah is ever, over all things, a Witness.”
The verses cited hereinabove make it evident that Shariat does not allow for the concept of disownment. In Shariat, the end of social bonds has no relation to the Law of Inheritance. The lawful heirs of the parent(s) can only stake a claim in the property of the parent(s) in case of the demise of the parent(s). The alienation (removal) of property can be made such that the parents pass away without leaving behind any inheritable estate. Verbal disownment or even the distribution of the equivalent in the newspaper will not impact the rights vested unto legal heirs under the Law of Inheritance.
However, in the case of an illegitimate child, the child cannot be affiliated with his actual father if his true father has disowned him.41 According to al-Shafi’i, if the husband feels the child born by his wife is not his, it is his duty to disown the child immediately.42
A child born out of Li’an43 is publicly considered to be an illegitimate child. Hence, the husband who is a party to the marriage but is not the child’s father is naturally not concerned with maintenance for child care as no legal provisions exist between him and the child. Since, in Islam, the husband in a legal union is considered the ‘acknowledger,’ the child born out of Li’an would be considered illegitimate unless otherwise acknowledged by the husband44. In the instance of Hilal b. Umayyah, Hilal had been on his farm before going home at night. He found a man with his wife. He saw things with his own eyes, and he heard things with his ears. The Prophet was very displeased when he heard that and found it hard to deal with. Later, Hilal found out that his wife was pregnant. Hilal disowned the child, so the child was ascribed to his mother, and according to the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), the child would inherit from her, and she would inherit from him as to what has been prescribed by Allah to her45.
COMPARATIVE STUDY:
England’s legal system is based on Common Law, and much like the other legal systems of the world, disownment has not been defined under the provisions of their laws, as well. It is not considered a legal concept and is not allotted a legal definition as such.
Through the various case laws illustrated hereinabove, it can be safely deduced that the respected Courts of India, at the very least, entertained the idea of disownment. However, unlike India, the English counterparts, through numerous legal precedents, have completely discarded the idea of disownment and have categorically rejected the concept.
In Re Coventry, Decd. Coventry v. Coventry46, the adult son (46) of the deceased sought provision from his mother’s (74) estate, which solely benefited her. The Judge ruled that the estate’s balance of £7,000, plus £2,000 previously given to the son, was sufficient. Despite the son’s dissatisfaction, Oliver J. dismissed the case, arguing that Parliament did not intend for the court to interfere in such matters, especially given the son’s ability to work.
In Espinosa v. Bourke47, the deceased’s daughter sought provision from his estate, which he had left to his grandson, after claiming that her father had promised her a share. The Judge ruled that although the deceased was morally bound to his daughter based on the promise, this obligation was dropped when the deceased financially supported his daughter throughout his life. The daughter appealed, and her appeal was granted whereby the Court of Appeal gave importance to the claimant’s testimony that her father promised her that assets she left to her husband would be hers.
In Ilott v. Mitson and Others48, Mrs. Jackson left her £500,000 estate to charities, excluding her estranged daughter, Mrs. Ilott, who had been disconnected from her mother since her teenage years. Despite her mother’s explicit wishes and letters, the Supreme Court awarded her £50,000, with an additional £20,000 for future needs and the Court of Appeal agreed with Mrs. Ilott and decided to re-evaluate its decision. A capital amount sufficient to allow Mrs. Ilott the right to buy would be granted, which will enable a later possible income augmentation through equity release. Mrs. Ilott would receive an additional £20,000.
In Re Estate of Mary Beatrice Waters (Deceased); Wright v Waters and Another49, Patricia Wright sought provision from her mother’s estate, citing proprietary estoppel and financial need. However, her estrangement, including a disownment letter in 2001, led the court to dismiss her claim under the 1975 Act. The court emphasized that her conduct towards her mother was a decisive factor in rejecting her claim.
THE ROAD AHEAD: SHOULD DISOWNMENT BE GIVEN LEGAL RECOGNITION?
Traditionally, disownment has been a part of the Indian family system because parents wanted to inform creditors and lenders that they would not be responsible for the debts incurred by their children.50 From the legal perspective, a father is never responsible or required to pay any debts incurred by his children unless he stands as guarantor/ co-obligant /surety. However, it became a norm to inform creditors and lenders of the same after facing harassment at the hands of the lenders when their children defaulted. As has been discussed hereinabove, the newspaper notice does not have any legal effect. However, it is simply a tool to notify the public and warn potential creditors from harassing them if their children default. In other instances, Indian parents disowned their children when they married into another religion, caste, or region.51
The people of the transsexual community have been a constant victim of disownment throughout the ages.52 LBGTQ+ children are also at an ever-growing risk of facing disownment or family estrangement53, in addition to young women belonging to religious minority groups, where a common punishment has been disowning them.54 Another report by Mody (2006)55 analysing the family dynamics in Delhi found that Delhi families tend to declare their daughter dead if she decides to leave the family and marry a partner of her choice.
Now the question arises whether the concept of family estrangement should be given legal recognition so that it, along with the legally recognised concept of disinheritance, forms a more nuanced and legally recognised concept of ‘disownment’? To answer this question, along with other factors, it must be considered what all would be the consequences of such a legal recognition. This article answers this question in the negative, based on the premise that such recognition shall result in more problems than solutions.
Traditionally, family scholars have considered estrangement as permanent,56 but it cannot be absolute due to its dependence on the emotional aspect. The reasons behind estrangement can be resolved between families, and viewing it through the lens of finality is impractical. In the spirit of the same argument, if awarding legality to the concept of family estrangement is impractical, then legally recognising the concept of disownment is out of the question.
CONCLUSION:
This article examines disownment as a process encompassing both disinheritance and family estrangement. It then reviews the existing jurisprudence, both nationally and internationally, surrounding the concept of disownment. In the Indian context, the personal laws of Muslims, Christians, and Hindus are analyzed. While provisions on disinheritance are present and discussed, there are no specific legal frameworks addressing family estrangement or disownment.
It becomes apparent that the concept of ‘disownment’ is not adequately recognized under Indian law, despite its prevalence in social reality. The article further considers whether disownment or family estrangement should be granted legal recognition. However, it argues against such recognition, cautioning that legally sanctioning family estrangement could lead to sociological issues and permanent ruptures within families. Therefore, it suggests that legal acknowledgment of family estrangement and disownment should be avoided.
Endnotes
1. Definition of Disown, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disown (last visited Nov. 25, 2021)
3. Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 79.
5. Jaidev Beniwal and Another v. State of Haryana, [2007] SCC OnLine P&H 259.
7. Devkil v. Kedar Nath (1912) ILR 39 Cal 704.
8. Dr Murray Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice (2nd edn, Jason Aronson 1982)
9. Kylie Agillas, ‘Family Estrangement’ (2013) in C Franklin (ed), Encyclopedia of Social Work (National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press); See also Kylie Agillas, Family Estrangement: A Matter of Perspective (1st edn, Routledge 2016) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315581910.
10. Karl Pillemer, Fault Lines: Fractured Families and How to Mend Them (1st edn, Avery, Penguin Random House LLC 2020)
11. Marc Szydlik, ‘Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict’ (2008) 1 Journal of Comparative Family Studies 97
13. Leslie M Drozd and Nancy Williams Olesen, ‘Is it Abuse, Alienation, and/or Estrangement?’ (2004) 1 Journal of Child Custody 65–106.
14. ‘Alienation’ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, 2004) 226.
15. ‘Parent-Alienation Syndrome’ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, 2004) 1412.
16. ‘Disinheritance’ Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, 2004) 3524.
17. Shaheda Sarwar Khan v. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan and Others, [1998] SCC OnLine Bom 471.
19. Hindu Succession Act 1956, s 8
20. Registration Act 1908, s 17.
21. Romans 8:15, Ephesians 1:5, St John 1:12-13 and Galatians 4:5
22. Maktul v Mst. Manbhari & Others, (1958) AIR SC 918 [6].
23. Madanlal Pulchand Jain and Ors v State of Maharashtra (1992) SCR (2) 479.
24. C N Arunachala Mudaliar v C A Muruganatha Mudaliar (1954) SCR 243.
25. Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.118-119
26. S. R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169.
28. Smt Raj Kumari v. Preeti Satija, [2014] SCC Online Del 188 [56].
29. Sachin v. Jhabbu Lal, [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6098.
31. After the death or incapacitation of the original will-maker.
32. A female, regardless of her status as a mother, sister, or daughter under Islamic law of inheritance, gets one of the three shares depending on how close she is to the deceased.
33. “Offspring” here refers to any number of children, male or female.
34. And the father will inherit the remainder of the estate.
35. While siblings decrease the mother’s share to one-third to one sixth of the estate, siblings do not get a share of the inheritance. The father receives the remainder.
36. Before the bequests can be fulfilled, debts and any other financial obligations, such as funeral expenses, unfulfilled promises, or unpaid dowry, must be paid. The estate can then be divided among the heirs. Individuals who do not have an inheritance share and charities can be entitled to up to one third of the estate.
37. It is impossible to know who will be able to help you during your lifetime or after your death.
38. These shares are split equally between males & females.
39. This condition is required for any bequest. If the deceased violates it, the bequest will not be honoured or may be adjusted by the executor.
40. Only those mentioned in verses 11-12 can be heirs to fixed shares by bequest.
41. Dr MS Sujimon, ‘Istilḥāq and Its Role in Islamic Law’ (2003) 18 Arab Law Quarterly 117-143.
42. AI-Nawawi, Minhaj al-Talibin and Umdat al-Muftin (Dar Al-Minhaj, D 676 Hijri) 103.
43. Form of Divorce by Curse on charges of adultery against the wife.
44. AI-Khatib, al-Iqna II, p 122.
45. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tanari, Jami al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil al-Qur’an (3rd edn, Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa Awladuh, Cairo 1968) 85.
46. Re Coventry, Decd, Coventry v Coventry [1977] C No 2852, [1980] Ch 461.
47. Espinosa v Bourke [1999] 1 FLR 747.
48. Ilott v Mitson and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 346.
49. Re Estate of Mary Beatrice Waters (Deceased); Wright v Waters and Another [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch).
50. Rishabh Pandey, ‘Can a Son Be Disowned? If Disowned, What Are His Rights in the Ancestral Property?’ (13 October 2021) iPleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-of-the-son-ancestral-property.
51. Mattison Mines, ‘Conceptualizing the Person: Hierarchical Society and Individual Autonomy in India’ (1988) 90 American Anthropologist 568–579 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.3.02a00030.
52. Charlotte Troy, ‘Resisting Marginalisation and Negotiating Legitimacy: The Hijras of India’ (2018) 21 Irish Journal of Anthropology 72–89.
53. Janees Rafiq, ‘Being LGBT in India: Some Home Truths’ (2020) 11 International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Issue 5, 222.
54. K Chakraborty, ‘The Sexual Lives of Muslim Girls in the Bustees of Kolkata, India’ (2010) 10(1) Sex Education 1–21 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810903491339.
55. P Mody, ‘Kidnapping, Elopement and Abduction: An Ethnography of Love-Marriage in Delhi’ in Love in South Asia: A Cultural History (F edn, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 2006) 207–21.
56. Kristen Carr, Amanda J Holman, Jenna Abetz, Jody Koenig Kellas, and Elizabeth Vagnoni, ‘Giving Voice to the Silence of Family Estrangement: Comparing Reasons of Estranged Parents and Adult Children in a Non-Matched Sample’ (2015) Papers in Communication Studies 66.
Leave a Reply