India's top court has ruled that daughters have equal rights to Hindu family property

[pothead]

I haven't completely read the translations on this but that arrangement is most probably because the daughters are compulsorily promised economic assets / security when they get married. This is called 'Mahr'. The groom has to pledge or pay money, jewelry, land etc to the bride during the wedding ceremony. The manner and time when the asset transfer is completed is also formulated during the ceremony. These assets are the woman's personal property and the man has no claim on them. We should remember that a Muslim woman can divorce and remarry with each marriage having its own 'Mahr'.

Please read this thread of mine from 2015. It is an article written by an Indian Christian woman who married her Indian Muslim husband under Islamic marriage law because it gave her better socio-economic security. The article is not only the author's experience but is generally about the need of prenuptial agreements in Indian non-Muslim marriages and how Islam since inception has provided a model for it.

To come back to your original point, the sons in a Muslim family get economical assets by their own effort or by inheritance ( from mother or father ).

@Indos @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan, any comments ?

Do you know the first thing misogynists do to when confronted with archaic laws that subjugate women?
JUSTIFY THOSE LAWS

That you would even begin to defend it......

Forget it, it's a simple property law & you wrote an essay to justify,
wonder what you would do if we were discuss polygamy..

 

[xeuss]

This article explains the ruling better, along with some historical context:

https://indianexpress.com/article/e...t-on-hindu-womens-inheritance-rights-6550767/

Explained: Reading the Supreme Court verdict on Hindu women’s inheritance rights
A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005.
Written by Apurva Vishwanath | New Delhi | Updated: August 13, 2020 8:40:47 am

The Supreme Court of India.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expanded on a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint legal heir and inherit ancestral property on terms equal to male heirs.

What is the ruling?

A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gave Hindu women the right to be coparceners or joint legal heirs in the same way a male heir does. “Since the coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005,” the ruling said.

What is the 2005 law?

The Mitakshara school of Hindu law codified as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governed succession and inheritance of property but only recognised males as legal heirs. The law applied to everyone who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and followers of Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj are also considered Hindus for the purposes of this law.


In a Hindu Undivided Family, several legal heirs through generations can exist jointly. Traditionally, only male descendants of a common ancestor along with their mothers, wives and unmarried daughters are considered a joint Hindu family. The legal heirs hold the family property jointly.

Women were recognised as coparceners or joint legal heirs for partition arising from 2005. Section 6 of the Act was amended that year to make a daughter of a coparcener also a coparcener by birth “in her own right in the same manner as the son”. The law also gave the daughter the same rights and liabilities “in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son”.

The law applies to ancestral property and to intestate succession in personal property — where succession happens as per law and not through a will.

The 174th Law Commission Report had also recommended this reform in Hindu succession law. Even before the 2005 amendment, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu had made this change in the law, and Kerala had abolished the Hindu Joint Family System in 1975.

How did the case come about?

While the 2005 law granted equal rights to women, questions were raised in multiple cases on whether the law applied retrospectively, and if the rights of women depended on the living status of the father through whom they would inherit. Different benches of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views on the issue. Different High Courts had also followed different views of the top court as binding precedents.

In Prakash v Phulwati (2015), a two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Goel held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only to “living daughters of living coparceners” as on September 9, 2005 (the date when the amendment came into force).

In February 2018, contrary to the 2015 ruling, a two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Sikri held that the share of a father who died in 2001 will also pass to his daughters as coparceners during the partition of the property as per the 2005 law.

Then in April that year, yet another two-judge bench, headed by Justice R K Agrawal, reiterated the position taken in 2015.

These conflicting views by Benches of equal strength led to a reference to a three-judge Bench in the current case. The ruling now now overrules the verdicts from 2015 and April 2018. It settles the law and expands on the intention of the 2005 legislation “to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have”.

How did the court decide the case?

The court looked into the rights under the Mitakshara coparcenary. Since Section 6 creates an “unobstructed heritage” or a right created by birth for the daughter of the coparcener, the right cannot be limited by whether the coparcener is alive or dead when the right is operationalised.

The court said the 2005 amendment gave recognition of a right that was in fact accrued by the daughter at birth. “The conferral of a right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 9.9.2005, the provisions are of retroactive application, they confer benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mitakshara coparcenary shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener,” the ruling said.

The court also directed High Courts to dispose of cases involving this issue within six months since they would have been pending for years.

 

[jamahir]

Do you know the first thing misogynists do to when confronted with archaic laws that subjugate women?
JUSTIFY THOSE LAWS

That you would even begin to defend it......

Forget it, it's a simple property law & you wrote an essay to justify,

1. I am a socialist, a humanist. How can you call me a misogynist ?

2. How can you call a progressive law as subjugating ? I have referred you to an article by a Christian woman who married under Islamic law because she found such an arrangement to be more secure socio-economically.

3. But yes, I am in favor of India having a UCC ( Uniform Civil Code ) that should replace the separate religious laws here. The UCC should be based on socialist understanding.

wonder what you would do if we were discuss polygamy..

Islamic understanding is that a man should take another wife only if he can comfortably provide for her and the others.

But I will point out that in the initial stage of the USSR they experimented with abolishing traditional marriage as they considered it not in line with communist thought.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

What a beautifully twisted court and justice system,
It took 70 plus years to grant equal rights to Hindu women,
But were very quick to pass judgement on triple talaq, in the the process legally condemning a husband to jail if he did so.

I don't believe in triple talaq, but what is a secular court in a secular country doing passing judgements on religious matters.

In which country and in what logic does it make sense to send the husband to jail, in third world country, such as India how is the family meant to survive with the husband in jail and its effect on the children.
And once he is out, what effect will that have not just on the marriage but the entirety of both the family groupings.

Shameful Court.
This court has already declared that mosque is not a part of Islam.
Judicial Hindutva fascism

Lol. The law is here since 2005. In state of Kerala since 76', AP since 86, TN since 89. This judgement is related to an old case whether this law can be applied retroactively. Would appreciate if someone would read the article before posting garbage. Last time I checked TT is banned in Pakistan.

 

[pothead]

1. I am a socialist, a humanist. How can you call me a misogynist ?

2. How can you call a progressive law as subjugating ? I have referred you to an article by a Christian woman who married under Islamic law because she found such an arrangement to be more secure socio-economically.

3. But yes, I am in favor of India having a UCC ( Uniform Civil Code ) that should replace the separate religious laws here. The UCC should be based on socialist understanding.



Islamic understanding is that a man should take another wife only if he can comfortably provide for her and the others.

But I will point out that in the initial stage of the USSR they experimented with abolishing traditional marriage as they considered it not in line with communist thought.

Unadulterated BS.

The more you justify these misogynistic practices, the pathetic you sound.
You are no socialist...

 

[jamahir]

Unadulterated BS.

The more you justify these misogynistic practices, the pathetic you sound.
You are no socialist...

You are replying with emotion, not calm reason. What do you find misogynistic in my writing ?

 

[Trango Towers]

Great news, actually.

Now let us try to enforce the law. That is the biggest challenge in India.

It's a good law and I hope the indian courts enforce it. I also hope this happens in Pakistan

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I haven't completely read the translations on this but that arrangement is most probably because the daughters are compulsorily promised economic assets / security when they get married. This is called 'Mahr'. The groom has to pledge or pay money, jewelry, land etc to the bride during the wedding ceremony. The manner and time when the asset transfer is completed is also formulated during the ceremony. These assets are the woman's personal property and the man has no claim on them. We should remember that a Muslim woman can divorce and remarry with each marriage having its own 'Mahr'.

Please read this thread of mine from 2015. It is an article written by an Indian Christian woman who married her Indian Muslim husband under Islamic marriage law because it gave her better socio-economic security. The article is not only the author's experience but is generally about the need of prenuptial agreements in Indian non-Muslim marriages and how Islam since inception has provided a model for it.

To come back to your original point, the sons in a Muslim family get economical assets by their own effort or by inheritance ( from mother or father ).

@Indos @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan, any comments ?

No comments, just wanted to elaborate that Mehr must be returned in case of a divorce.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

You are replying with emotion, not calm reason. What do you find misogynistic in my writing ?

Because you are Muslim, you will never be able to shake that label.

"Hindu is incorrigible." -Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

 

[peagle]

Lol. The law is here since 2005. In state of Kerala since 76', AP since 86, TN since 89. This judgement is related to an old case whether this law can be applied retroactively. Would appreciate if someone would read the article before posting garbage. Last time I checked TT is banned in Pakistan.

Before you give your silly reply, why don't you try and read what I have written?

Are you simply incapable of managing a sensible discussion based on what is being said, you lot always go into your own fantasy world,
create an assumed statement by a person and then create your own fantasy answers.

I couldn't care less about judgement from a hypocritical court, and that was my point, your court is hypocritical and so is India, do you understand, read slowly if you don't.

I gave my statement and backed it up with valid reasons, if you disagree, highlight any parts of my statement and challenge them based on reason and facts not fantasy statements. Believe me, I will admit my error if it is correctly pointed out, only with justifiable reason, but I have no time to listen to your fantasies.

When I said, I don't believe in triple talaq, what do you think I meant? can you not understand a simple sentence. And, where did I claim triple talaq exists or doesn't exist in Pakistan. It is immaterial to this discussion.

It was the manner in which the whole topic was handled and the fact that a secular country and a secular court is passing judgement on religious matters.

For too long the world has been listening to your moralistic bullcrap. There was a time when you could hide facts and pretend nothing happened.
Now you need to be shown a mirror for the evil acts India does, against its minorities and against its neighbours, you can argue, discuss or run away and hide, the choice is yours.
Silencing anyone is no longer a choice you hold.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Please use some sense and make some effort to understand the discussion before you contribute, I understood the article, I was making a point on hypocrisy, stop getting frustrated.

Please do not get frustrated, you are clearly unable to contribute without getting your panties in a twist.

I am merely highlighting the hypocrisy in which your legal justice operates. The article concerns a court judgement so I am within my rights to raise relevant points. I stuck to the topic in the thread, but, you have chosen to go into your Indian fantasies about alleged wrongdoings about Hindus in Pakistan, WITHOUT providing a reply to any of the issues I raised, talk about self-absorbed.

Never-the-less I will reply to your queries, even though clearly you do not have the mental aptitude to answer the issues I raised.

The personal laws system in India is merely a British colonial heritage, so don't get your panties in a twist and make larger than life claims, you people did not do anything except attack Muslim rights in so many ways, legal and otherwise. There is a massive movement towards a uniform civil code, you can't digest the little rights that were accorded to the Muslims by the British, and even those rights have been taken away under one excuse or another.
Get out of your fantasies, you live in an oppressed society and an oppressed system, YOU are the oppressor.

You don't recognise Sikhism as a separate religion, and I know they hate you for it, you only approved a Sikh marriage act after Pakistan started the process to approve such a law in Pakistan, so you had to do it before Pakistan could, hypocrites, go teach someone else about your hypocrisies.

Regarding Hindu marriage act, there has to be demand before a law is passed, when demand rises, we act in Pakistan, most of Pakistans Hindu community is based in rural areas and concentrated in small parts of the country, granted it could have been done much earlier, but it was done, and their voice was heard. There isn't exactly a history of stable governments in Pakistan, so things moved slowly on lot of other issues too, it has nothing to do with any wrongdoing against anyone.

Right now, in Pakistan, Hindu women effectively have 3 votes in an election and Hindu men have 2 votes. Please do not get your panties in a twist, I shall explain so you don't have to get frustrated.

1. Pakistan has reserved seat system, proportional to their population for each minority religious groups to guarantee their representation in each and every Assembly and Parliament.
2. They are also allowed to contest in open seats if they win it is not part of the reserved seat quota, it is over and above.
3. 20% of the seats are reserved for women to guarantee a minimum representation for women, women from religious minorities can also get elected from these reserved seats over and above the first two rights.

In effect, minority religious group males have 2 votes and women have 3 votes.
In your hypocritical India Muslims makeup, 15% of the population but only have 0-5% representation in your parliaments and assemblies. shame shame shame.

I personally disagree with any laws that infringe on a person's right to choose whichever religion they choose to follow,
But, even here at least we are honest, not hypocritical hypocrites like you lot in India.

You are secular but ban beef, whilst making Billions of dollars a year by exporting beef and cow leather.
Your state controls Mandirs in India so effectively a secular government has a say in how Mandirs are run in India.
you are forcing minorities to convert to Hinduism, Ghar Wapsi, and cry about Muslims and Christians converting people, hypocrites!!!!!!!!, you can't cry about a thing and then do that very thing, hypocrites!!!!

You have anti-conversion laws, but still, pretend to be secular.

At least in Pakistan, they are honest. Islam is a state religion, people know the law and are free to try to repeal it, there are free voices, who do speak against certain laws, but the point is we are open and honest, right or wrong, that is always better than being two-faced hypocrites as in India.

https://theprint.in/economy/indias-...pite-hindu-vigilante-campaign-at-home/210164/

https://www.milligazette.com/news/11636-how-is-ghar-wapsi-different-from-forcible-conversions/

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Andh...ans-to-mass-conversion-to-Hinduism-48367.html

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/i...w-in-five-states-but-proposed-to-go-national/

You lot are frustrated hypocrites, and you have nothing to say except to cry, shout and lie.
Shame on you.


@Mangus Ortus Novem @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @PAKISTANFOREVER

Excellent reply brother. You have a gift with words. It was a pleasure reading it.

Thanks for the tag. Looking forward to your further contributions on this forum.

 

[Zapper]

LOL

I think there is some legal interpretation as well.

Is he trying to say that a daughter can get the share till she is alive but son can get it until he is married?

What @Pandora said is true. Son's are typically bound to get influenced by their wives after marriage but the same is hardly applicable for daughters

 

[jamahir]

No comments, just wanted to elaborate that Mehr must be returned in case of a divorce.

I am sleepy now so will log off. Will continue discussion tomorrow.

Because you are Muslim, you will never be able to shake that label.

Of being misogynist ? Yes, that's a decades old misunderstanding. If you read the book Red Mars you will find one of the protagonists chancing upon a group of Sufis traveling across Mars. One of the Sufi husband and wife make a show to the protagonist that they, Muslims, are not the misogynists he had assumed.

"Hindu is incorrigible." -Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Well, many a Hindu is sensible. Just that the events in India since 2014 have hidden or oppressed the sensible ones.

 

[peagle]

All the loonies taking shots at us,
Not one Hindu uttered a single word or opposed the law.

Albeit we feel it's too late,
Equal rights for women is not something men need to agree to, it's their bloody right as human beings.

To all the bigots crapping on us,
please go and read what the Indian Islamic property law for daughters is...Yeah, they are entitled to half of sons. I didn't want to bring up this shitty comparison in topic that should have been appreciated.
But few posters were chest thumping about how their religion treats women equally.

Yeah, like you are entitled to 4 wives at the same time,
are your women entitled to 4 husbands at the same time.

If the answer is NO, please cover your head in shame. Forget about equality, even the thought that as a man you are entitled to multiple wives is insulting women at so many levels.

Since you have chosen to denigrate this discussion into the mud, whilst trying to be all moral and righteous, shameful person. SO I shall meet you in your mud pit.

How come in Hinduism a woman can have more than one husband, all brothers even, and men cant have more than one wife.

Don't crap on religious traditions, we are discussing worldly matters here, you had to show your worth by dragging people's religious believes into this discussion, shame on you.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...adition of,of her original husband's brothers.

My suggestion is to keep religious traditions out of discussions, each to their own,
keep the discussion worldly. You made a statement, I have given a reply. Don't drag this further.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I am sleepy now so will log off. Will continue discussion tomorrow.



Of being misogynist ? Yes, that's a decades old misunderstanding. If you read the book Red Mars you will find one of the protagonists chancing upon a group of Sufis traveling across Mars. One of the Sufi husband and wife make a show to the protagonist that they, Muslims, are not the misogynists he had assumed.



Well, many a Hindu is sensible. Just that the events in India since 2014 have hidden or oppressed the sensible ones.

Enjoy your sleep brother. Bi iznillah.

The amount of love and affection which we show our women (grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces, etc.) simply has no comparison in the whole world. This is because we are taught to respect and honor women from an early age.

Mustafa saws said, "The best one is the one who is best to his wives," "Paradise is under the feet of Mothers," and "Whoever raises daughters to adulthood with love and kindness gets protection from Hellfire."