Abstract:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as HSA) declares a Hindu woman as an absolute owner of her property, and the most credited amendment act of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act places daughters on par with the sons as coparceners. Yet, one can see that the rules that assist the devolution of women’s property are remarkably less favorable to her own family than to that of a man’s. The present article examines this exact discrepancy under section 15 of HSA, compared with sections 8 and 10 of HSA. The article also examines key Supreme Court judgments that clarify the current stance and interpretation of these provisions. The article further elaborates on the recent developments around the provisions. Structural asymmetries are also identified by the paper, after which the paper proposes the amendment of Section 15, which will then give statutory recognition and precedence to the parents of the deceased woman who dies intestate, making the law abide by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- INTRODUCTION:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956[1] governs how a Hindu’s property devolves when no “will” is left behind. The Act provides for both joint family property and separate, self-acquired property, and sets out distinct rules for intestate[2] succession of women and men. The Act has undergone multiple amendments, where the 2005 amendment is the most credited, which is known to make daughter coparceners in their own right and place them at par with the sons[3].
The irony with regard to this law is that even though women have equal inheritance rights during their lifetime, the law treats their property differently when they die without a will. When a Hindu woman dies without a will, the way in which her property is distributed is different from how it would take place if it were a man’s property. This difference occurs at the stage where often the woman’s own blood relatives are put at a disadvantage. What is even more important is that, despite multiple suggestions, there remains no amendment to this rule.
This article examines that precise gap. The paper starts by setting out the statutory scheme for a woman’s property and further goes on to compare it with the scheme for male intestacy. The paper also considers certain important Supreme Court decisions, demonstrating the consequences of the present statutory provision. The paper further reviews the current judicial developments and also studies the structural asymmetries. The primary argument of this article is that section 15 of HSA should be amended so as to put women’s parents where a man’s mother stands under the Act.
[1]Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956, (India) hereinafter HSA.
[2]Id. S.3(1)(g)
[3] Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, No. 39, Acts of Parliament (India); Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 S.C.C. 1