JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 2. The 1st petitioner Sri. Neelakandan K.N., states that he is a senior citizen and a member of Kizheppattu Pushpakam, a Nambisan family. The said family is holding the hereditary right of Kazhakam in the Sree Danuvandhari Temple, Nelluvai (hereinafter referred to as “the temple’). According to the petitioner, he inherited the right of Kazhakam by his birth in the said family. 3. The 1st petitioner is aged 70 years and he made a request to the 3rd respondent, the Secretary Cochin Devaswom Board to permit him to hand over the hereditary/karaima service rights of the family to the 2nd petitioner, Anjali, who is the daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner. 4. The petitioner further contended that, as per the succession right prevailing in the Nambisan community in the erstwhile Cochin state is ‘Makathayam’ right of inheritance. Hence, the woman, after marriage, inherits the rights of her husband’s family. Due to the ceremony of ‘Kudiveppu’ during the marriage in the community, the married woman will be a part of her husband’s family with respect to all the rituals and rights and shall follow ‘Pula and other Acharams’ of her husband's family. According to the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner, Anjali, is entitled to inherit all the rights of her husband’s family. 5. It is in this context that the 1st petitioner approached the 4th respondent, the Devaswom Commissioner, seeking permission to transfer the Karaima right of Kazhakam to the 2nd petitioner. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 dated 01.06.2022, a copy of the affidavit sworn by the 1st petitioner and his wife expressing their willingness to hand over the Karaima right of Kazhakam to the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner has also executed Ext.P2 written undertaking before the Board that she would exercise the duties of Kazhakam in a responsible manner, if it is entrusted to her. Ext.P2 undertaking was executed on 26.05.2022. 6. Vide Ext.P3 proceedings dated 22.09.2022 of the Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner. In Ext.P3 proceedings, it is stated that the Karaima Kazhakam right could only be transferred in the name of the son of the 1st petitioner and not to the daughter-in-law. Ext.P2 undertaking was executed on 26.05.2022. 6. Vide Ext.P3 proceedings dated 22.09.2022 of the Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner. In Ext.P3 proceedings, it is stated that the Karaima Kazhakam right could only be transferred in the name of the son of the 1st petitioner and not to the daughter-in-law. Later, in the year 2023, 1st petitioner preferred a similar representation to consider his request, which was also rejected vide Ext.P4 order dated 15.07.2023. 7. The 1st petitioner again submitted Ext.P7 representation to the 2nd respondent Devaswom Board to reconsider Exts.P3 and P4 orders. Ext.P7 representation was rejected by Ext.P8 order dated 31.01.2025. 8. It is in the above backdrop, that the petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: “ (i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext. P3, Ext.P4 and Ext.P8 and issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to permit 1st petitioner to handover the Karayma service to the 2nd petitioner who is his daughter-in-law at Sree Danuvandhari Temple, Nelluvai which is under the administration of the respondent devaswom.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rajesh Chakyat, submitted that Exts.P3, P4 and P8 orders of the Board are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned counsel would submit that the right of karaima is a family right, that can be inherited like property rights and the head of the family can decide who among the members of the family can inherit karaima service. The request of the senior member of the family ought not have been rejected by the Devaswom Board. 10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in view of Ext.P1 affidavit and Ext. P2 consent letter, the Board has no right to reject the transfer of karaima right to the 2nd petitioner. It is pointed out that, as per the customary right in the Nambisan community, a ritual named Kudiveppu, whereby the daughter-in-law gets all the customary rights in the family of her husband. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board, Sri. K.P. Sudheer would submit that they have no dispute as to the hereditary/karaima Kazhakam right being with the family of the 1st petitioner. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board, Sri. K.P. Sudheer would submit that they have no dispute as to the hereditary/karaima Kazhakam right being with the family of the 1st petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the hereditary rights cannot be transferred in favour of the daughter-in-law, as rightly mentioned in Exts.P3 and P4 orders. 12. The learned Standing Counsel would point out that the 1st petitioner, without challenging Exts. P3 and P4 orders within a reasonable time, have submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 14.10.2024 to the President of the 2nd respondent Board. The Writ Petition is filed with considerable delay without any explanation for the said delay. It is submitted that the disputed questions of fact and the customary rights cannot be adjudicated while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 13. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Rajesh Chakyat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Rajmohan, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. K.P. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board. 14. The sole question involved in this matter is whether the daughter-in-law can stake a claim for hereditary/karaima right which belongs to the family of her husband. 15. Before further discussion, it may be useful to consider the ancient Hindu scriptures as to the status and position of a Hindu bride/daughter-in-law in the family of her husband. 16. In the context of Hindu religion, the daughter-in-law (snusha) is traditionally regarded as an embodiment of Lakshmi—the divine personification of prosperity, fertility, and the perpetuation of the family lineage—rendering her an essential and integral component of the household's well-being and continuity. 17. It would be useful to extract verse 3.56 of the Manusmriti , an ancient source of Hindu law. The said verse declares that where women are revered, there the deities rejoice; where they are not revered, all actions become fruitless." 18. As per ancient sources of Hindu law, like Manusmriti , the term "Daughter-in-law", “Snusha” or “Puthra Vadhu” denotes the wife of a son, symbolising familial ties, prosperity, and her essential role in family dynamics. The Snusha is considered ‘Grihalakshmi’ (the goddess of prosperity in the home) and is expected to manage the household while upholding familial traditions. More than just the wife of a son, she stands as a powerful and essential link between two families, embodying the ideals of dharma and continuity. The Snusha is considered ‘Grihalakshmi’ (the goddess of prosperity in the home) and is expected to manage the household while upholding familial traditions. More than just the wife of a son, she stands as a powerful and essential link between two families, embodying the ideals of dharma and continuity. Her role is celebrated as a cornerstone of familial strength, prosperity, and cultural heritage, inspiring confidence in the enduring strength and resilience of the family unit. 19. Furthermore, the daughter-in-law is often viewed as a nurturing figure who contributes to the well-being and stability of the household. Her role is not limited to domestic chores but also encompasses emotional support and fostering a harmonious environment. Respect and reverence for the daughter-in-law are ingrained in social norms, recognizing her as a vital link in the familial and spiritual continuity. Texts such as Manusmriti , Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Parashara Smriti emphasize respecting women in the household. A daughter-in-law traditionally manages household duties, participates in rituals, and ensures continuity of family customs. 20. On going through the ancient sources of Hindu law, it could be seen that a bride in a Hindu family assumes a pivotal and significant role in the family of her husband. She enjoys an equal status in her matrimonial home as that of a daughter. In other words, her role is equal to that of a daughter in the family. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a ceremony in the Nambisan community, namely, Kudiveppu. By that ceremony, a bride is accepted and brought to the family of her husband and thereby ceases a right in the family where she was born and brought up, insofar as the customary rights are concerned. The ceremony of Kudiveppu 21. Kudiveppu is a traditional Hindu ceremony, welcoming the bride to the groom's home. Kudiveppu treats her arrival as Lakshmidevi's advent, with aarti, gifts, and mantras invoking harmony. During this ceremony, the mother-in-law welcomes her joyously to the matrimonial house. Kudiveppu holds deep religious relevance as a sacred Hindu post-wedding ritual symbolising Grihapravesham, the bride's auspicious entry into her new home and family. Rooted in Vedic traditions, it invokes divine blessings for marital harmony, prosperity, and progeny. It symbolises the invocation of Lakshmi for household prosperity, with aarti, mantras, and right-foot entry symbolising dharma-guided union. 22. Kudiveppu holds deep religious relevance as a sacred Hindu post-wedding ritual symbolising Grihapravesham, the bride's auspicious entry into her new home and family. Rooted in Vedic traditions, it invokes divine blessings for marital harmony, prosperity, and progeny. It symbolises the invocation of Lakshmi for household prosperity, with aarti, mantras, and right-foot entry symbolising dharma-guided union. 22. The stand of the respondent Board is that the hereditary right can only be transferred by the holder of the right to the son and not the daughter-in-law. Therefore, the requests of the 1st petitioner were rejected by Exts.P3, P4 and P8 orders. 23. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced, pleadings and materials placed on record. 24. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the daughter-in-law can also stake a claim for a hereditary/karaima right which is vested with the family of her husband. Ext. P5 is a proceedings issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board dated 15.01.2025 vide order No.M4.10757/24. Ext. P5 order was passed with respect to the Karaima Kazhakam of Sree Arikanniyoor Sree Harikanyaka temple. By that order, the Board has granted the hereditary right of karaima kazhakam to the sister-in-law of late M.K. Muraleedharan Nambisan. The right of Karaima Kazhakam in that case was vested with the family of Muraleedharan Nambisan. As evident from Exts. P5 and P6 orders of the Board, the Board has no definite and consistent stand on this issue. In Ext. P6 proceedings, the Board has transferred the Karaima right of Kazhakam in favour of the daughter-in-law in certain other similar instances. Insofar as the karaima right of kazhakam of Oorakam temple is concerned, the Board has granted the said right to the daughter-in-law of Smt. Umadevi, who was the holder of Karaima Kazhakam in that temple. 25. In the instant case, the Board has no dispute as to the fact that the hereditary right of Kazhakam is vested with Kizhepattu Pushpakam, the family of the 1st petitioner. It is also borne out from the pleadings and submissions that the Nambisan community are following the Makkathayam mode of succession. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the Board is not justified in passing Exts. P3, P4 and P8 orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the Board is not justified in passing Exts. P3, P4 and P8 orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The Commissioner shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs and in view of Exts. P1 deed and P2 consent letter, after giving notice to the affected parties and affording them an opportunity of being heard. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the outer limit of three months from today.