Can a woman be Karta of joint hindu family?

there is judgment on this, Once I will get I will post it. The answer is in affirmative.

i think a women cannot be a karta in the real sense ..she can surely be a manager of the family as has been held by sc in some of the judgments .. but the main object of the amendment of 2005 was to give proprietry rights to women and reduce the gender bias they have been subjected to , but the intention of the legislature nowhere has been to touch upon the areas of personal law such as the concept of karta. the karta in a hindu coparcenary is not only the manager of the property but he enjoys certain powers and his position is sui generis . The peculiar position of the karta is that he can give rise to a coparcenary but a women cannot be a source of a coparcenary so she cannot be given the position as of a male karta as it has some relegious rights also attached . so i think she cannot be a karta in the real sense but yes can be a karta in sense of being the manager of the family.

I think a woman can become Karta of the family only if there is no male members who are major not otherwise.

Yes Suchitra S, is right, there has been a path breaking in this aspects with the 2005 Amendment. She can now be Karta in two special case if there are no male members and in case there are minors male members in the family which are prescribed by ancient Hundu law.

I do go with Suchitra mam.

i am not clear once i got the judgement i will post it

Yes, women can be karta of joint hindu family. Earlier before 2005 amendment she can be only manager of family but not the karta but after the amendment of 2005

1.She is coparcener in the joint hindu family.

2 she is the member of family. So female can also be a karta of family. There is change in the view point.

thanx for the comments. Now thr are basically to issues to be considered as Ms. Suchitra said that she can be a Karta but only in certain cases when thr is no male member or only minors in the family and as accrd to Mani female can be a Karta without any conditions as she is coparcenar now. What i would like to know is that being Karta of family has its socio religious aspects also, so what i want to know is that whether the amendment made in Succession Act is intended to give propietory rights to females only as given in its preamble or it also wants to create these religious rights. I want Mani's comments specially.

through amendment female member is also given equal share as that of male member.  in those circumstance why female member cannot be kartha or manager of the family.  the answer is in the question only.

Mr. Arvind i respect  your views but as the Supreme Court has not yet answered this question yet in any of his judgements the debate is still open. It can be accepted that a woman is completely eligible to be a Karta like any other male coparcenar but dont u think that position of Karta is very peculiar in itself, he is trustee or agent of JHF but technically he is neither trustee nor agent, Karta can take loans for his personal benefits in lieu of joint property moreover Karta is not accountable for his past dealings regarding joint property and many more such powers. If this right has been vested in the female dont you think somehow somewhere it will jeopardize the interest of other coparcenars as the members of the matrimonial home of female would try to take advantage of this. So, is it justified to vest this right in female without any conditions...?? I want comment of all those members who read this.

Mr. Arvind i respect  your views but as the Supreme Court has not yet answered this question yet in any of his judgements the debate is still open. It can be accepted that a woman is completely eligible to be a Karta like any other male coparcenar but dont u think that position of Karta is very peculiar in itself, he is trustee or agent of JHF but technically he is neither trustee nor agent, Karta can take loans for his personal benefits in lieu of joint property moreover Karta is not accountable for his past dealings regarding joint property and many more such powers. If this right has been vested in the female dont you think somehow somewhere it will jeopardize the interest of other coparcenars as the members of the matrimonial home of female would try to take advantage of this. So, is it justified to vest this right in female without any conditions...?? I want comment of all those members who read this.