Need of Amendment in Hindu Succession Act

The Hindu Succession Act was passed in the year 1956. After Independence, the legislators sought to give right over property to woman and consequent to it the right to dispose of the property the way she chose and also for her next of kin to inherit. Unfortunately a distinction was made in the way property of a woman and a man would devolve when they would die intestate. Emphasis is placed on the relationship by marriage and the source of the income. Though in that age it was a prudent move as otherwise it would have been widely protested against, by the Hindus. It was the first time that women were being given the absolute right to own property, it was a radical change from the past. Allowing the property to devolve irrespective of the source or nature of tie-whether by marriage or birth would have evoked widespread protest from the Hindus who were already wary of the Act. S. 15 of the Act, which is in discussion, reads as follows: (1). The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16, - (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband. (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father, (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father, and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father- in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband." S. 16 provides that one clause excludes the other in subsection (1) More than fifty years after independence and after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, the provisions have remained the same. It is time to change the law regarding inheritance of property of a Hindu female dying intestate. As we are moving towards a society which is placing women at par with men, it is unjust that their inheritance laws should differ. The problem with the Act is that it maintains patriarchal values - protects the source of income, and strength of marriage tie over blood relationship, which need to be addressed. When a woman dies intestate, the property must go to those near and dear to her. This is certainly the principle followed when a man dies intestate. Then why is it that heirs of the husband are given preference over the deceased's parents? Also, why must the source of the property matter. Why cant all the property go according to general rules of succession? Further when one seeks equality it must be both ways. A widow gets the husbands property, inherited from his parents, even if he dies issueless. But a widower would not get a share of his wifes property, which she inherited from her parents, if she died issueless. It is unfair to the husband. Further assuming a situation where the woman dies issueless, leaving behind property inherited from her mother, and the father is alive, S.15(2)(a) grants the property to the heirs of the father and not the father. This is rather ludicrous. There is also no reason why the mother should not inherit property in a similar situation where the father dies leaving behind the property. Thus, it can be seen that there is a need to alter the provision. The same suggestion was also made to the Government but it did not implement the same in the 2005 Amendment, which was a great step towards the equal rights for women. Women were made coparceners, which till then comprised only of men. The suggestion by the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, to the Rajya Sabha is These sections should be re-examined and reframed so that the provisions enunciated by these do not run contrary to the Amendment Bill. The Ministry may look into the matter and take appropriate steps accordingly. I propose that rather than reframing the section, the Legislature delete sections 15 and 16, and make S. 8 applicable also to a woman dying intestate. It is necessary for a truly equitable society, which doesn't discriminate between sexes, that such provisions are removed. They are rather insignificant as they do not directly affect a woman's right, but these provisions need to be removed, especially considering the progress women have made in the past half century, and our struggle to become a society which treats men and women on an equal footing.

"Loved reading this piece by G. ARAVINTHAN?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group