What's new

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

India's Supreme Court bolsters inheritance rights for Hindu women

India's top court has ruled that daughters have equal rights to Hindu family property. All Hindu women now have equal rights to their father's property from 1956, when the succession law was first codified.

Dharvi Vaid

11.08.2020

India's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that daughters have equal rights as sons in Hindu ancestral property.

The ruling extends the scope of legislation introduced in 2005 to cases where the father had died before the law was introduced.

"Once a daughter always a daughter...son is a son till he is married," said Justice Arun Kumar Mishra, who was heading the three judge bench.

"The daughter shall remain a coparcener [one who shares equally with others in inheritance of an undivided joint family property] throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not. Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life," Mishra pronounced.

The bench was hearing a series of appeals that questioned whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 — which gave daughters equal rights in family property — has a retrospective effect.

In 2016 and 2018, there were conflicting rulings by the court with regards to the interpretation of the Section.

The judges have directed Indian courts, where the cases have already been delayed due to the contradictory judgements, to make decisions within six months.

"The daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6. Hence, we request that the pending matters be decided, as far as possible, within six months," the bench said.

Amnesty International said the decision was a step towards "promoting equality for women".


Women's Rights and personal laws in India

India has individual laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Jews, first framed under the British rule.

Laws related to marriage, inheritance and adoption are codified in different acts for different religions.

Since India's independence in 1947, there has been a growing demand for a common legislation instead of personal laws, called the Uniform Civil Code.

Supporters of the legislation argue that a secular republic requires common law for all citizens rather than rules differentiated based on religion.

Activists have also argued that the rights of women are usually limited under religious laws.

In a pivotal judgement concerning personal laws, the Supreme Court of India had deemed the Islamic practice of triple talaq —men instantly divorcing their wives — was unconstitutional in 2017.

Last year Indian lawmakers passed a bill criminalizing the practice.

https://www.dw.com/en/indias-supreme-court-bolsters-inheritance-rights-for-hindu-women/a-54534390
Hmmmm....this should have been the case long ago. Don't see why a woman should be treated differently from a man especially when they are both from same family. Patriarchy has really made women inferior in every aspect , religions only seem to reinforce this even more.
 
No sir gg,

Entering or leaving a marriage is a religious act if it is done according to relevant religious requirements, it is not a religious act if you follow a civil marriage route.
I thought this is a simple fact that was already clear to everyone. I hope I have helped in clarifying the issue. Thanks.
Dear I don't know how it is treated in Pakistan, but in India, Muslim marriage is contractual as both parties should explicitly agree to Nikha...

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ours-legal-implications-of-marriage-in-india/
 
The only person replying in a silly and childish way is you. What an argument.

Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws? Particularly when an law is directly contrary to one of fundamental laws in constitution which promises equality to every person. Let me be clear. Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law (including religious laws) then its the job of the court or parliament to correct that injustice. Now the court can struck any law as unconstitutional based on facts before it, but it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court, but it cannot "become" an law until Parliament repeals it. Another example is in 86', Shah Bano verdict when the Parliament overturned the decision of the court by bringing in an new law making the judgement null and void.

Now just so you understand, Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century. There are in direct contravention to each other. The court in this scenario has to decide which law is supreme in this case.
When equality was bought in constitution, many Hindus opposed that law back in 47' saying it's an attack on their religion. Even not giving equal share to women was justified by saying they were given dowry and they have a share in husband's property. But it's not right.

The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way. Bringing in Universal Civil code making the law for everyone the same.

If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you. Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree. But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go.
What if, a person is ready to surrender his/her personal freedom, in order to comply with his/her religious beliefs ? Will court allow that as per Article 15 of constitution ?
 
“Allah charges you in regard with your children: a son’s share is equal to the share of two daughters;

A son's share in the judgement is equal to the share of each of the daughters.
 
No comments, just wanted to elaborate that Mehr must be returned in case of a divorce.

Seems not so. From :
Dower (mahr) in divorce

Mahr is a nuptial gift made by groom to the bride at the time of marriage. Upon receipt, it becomes her sole property with complete freedom of use and disposal. The marriage contract is not valid without the mahr. The amount of the mahr generally depended on the socio-economic status of the bride. The payment of a portion of the mahr was commonly deferred and served as a deterrent to the exercise of the right of unilateral divorce by the husband, although classical jurists disagreed about the permissibility and manner of deferring payment of the mahr.

Islamic jurisprudence has clear guidance on handling of mahr in the case of divorce, depending on who asks for the divorce and whether or not the intercourse occurred. If the husband asks for a divorce and intercourse has occurred, he pays full mahr; if the husband asks for a divorce and the intercourse has not occurred, the husband pays half the dower; if the wife asks for a divorce and intercourse has occurred, the husband pays half the mahr; and if the wife asks for a divorce and intercourse has not occurred, then no mahr is required to be paid by the husband.
 
A son's share in the judgement is equal to the share of each of the daughters.

There is no specific limit one can even give entire inheritance to daughters. This is just the bare minimum which is required.
 
What does this remark mean? Can anyone explain?

During a Hindu marriage the Husband promises the Wife that he will take care of her all through the life while the Wife does not make any such promises. Hence after the marriage, the son is bound to give prefer to his wife over the parents but the daughter can still favor her parents over her husband.
 
Thank you so much for presenting a proper discussion, whether it makes sense is not relevant, the fact that you made an effort is commendable, well done, tallyian tallyian.

Although this time you seem a bit more coherent and now I am actually enjoying out interaction. The main thing that concerns me is that your views seem to contradict themselves within the same statement, I don’t get a clear image of what you support and what you oppose, I’ve given my opinions supremely clear, with proper reasons, but I have to say your ramblings just do not make sense, because you do not hold one single view, you just Mumble Jumble, I don’t mean to be disrespectful but honestly, you are not being clear in what views you hold. Please allow me to clarify.

"Is there any rule banning an secular country in framing religious laws?"

The most commonly accepted definition of secularism is "separation of religion and state" so yes there is a ban on a secular country framing religious laws, it is YOU, India and Indians, who have been shouting with Band Baja for 70 plus years about you are secularism, if you are secular then why do you have a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act that allows state governments to take over temples and control their vast properties & assets. Bizarrely, the state government can use the money generated by a temple (donations, income from assets etc.), what a joke.

Why do your courts make rulings on religious matters?
That’s my point, what’s not to understand????????
What are you?????? What do you believe in??????? Can you people not decide or do you enjoy living in hypocrisy?

You argument is based on the premise that you as an individual support secularism, but in the above statement you support the state/country in legislating on religious matters, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. You cannot have it both ways.

If you accept you are a hybrid system (although no Indian has ever claimed it) then you cannot have an issue with the Indian Personal Laws system, there is a personal law for the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Jain but isn’t it strange your opposition is purely based on Muslim personal law, even when you are trying to hide it, still, your hatred for Muslims and Islam is so naked, it is shameful.

"Whenever an fundamental right of an citizen is affected by any other law
it gives an advice or orders the govt to make it unconstitutional. To give an ex, TT was banned by the court"


This does not make sense at all. If personal law system is approved according to the constitution, surely it must be or these laws would not exist, then how can they be in conflict with the constitution, do you not see the illogical reasoning in the argument, if a law is in violation of the constitution, that law cannot exist.
The fact that personal law system has existed for 70 plus years, means that it was not in violation of the constitution

In order to gradually attack the Muslim community, a certain aspect of the personal laws have been attacked as part of a well thought out design, “ we are not against you, just this small thing and that small thing” this argument lacks moral courage shamefully speaks of the Indian mindset.

For the record, a lot of the judges in the Supreme Court also were against hearing the TT case because it was a religious matter, it was driven through politically, so much for your Supreme Court, or Sham Court

Why is it only the Muslim personal law that always seems to be at the forefront of so-called civil rights issues, DO Hindus not have issues or Christians or Others? Why has everyone not properly questioned state control of Hindu Mandirs, and started a movement against it, or banning entry to women and low caste Hindus from many temples issue been resolved. Why are Muslim issues always politised?
Why is the Muslim always a red target? You cannot pick and choose and target your minorities, change the system fully, or let people live in peace.

Stop your silly reasoning’s because they are hollow, empty and hateful, people can see right through the Lots of you.

"Islamic law recognized in India's civil code is Polygamy, underage marriage, TT and Nika Halala. That's religious laws. Now that law is against the basic fundamental right of an human being to equality and gender rights not compatible with 21st century"

See again there you go with your ignorant attacks on Islam and Muslims, even when you are trying to hide it and I told you to keep religious attacks out of it you can’t help yourself, you hateful person. I will allow this to pass because clearly your brain needs some work, I can’t be bothered to repair you.

Who the heck are you to decide about another person’s religious beliefs, and what is suitable and what isn’t? I assume you are Hindu unless you are ashamed to admit it, I am proudly Muslim, openly a secular one.

Regarding your 21st century barometer, that you want to apply, would I be correct that according to your logic Hinduism and all its manifestation of believe systems also do not belong in the 21st century, that’s your reasoning, not mine. Hence the sole reason for the Nation-State of India does not exist, without Hinduism you have nothing, you are all different ethnicities.

Pack up India, and let the Marathi, Bengali, and Tamil live in their own countries. Actually that makes a lot of sense, you are a genius.

"The other option is going completely secular. Like the western way."

There is no western secular way sir gg, please what are you talking about. Most western countries practice secularism according to their own traditions, there is no set format. Secularism isn’t a magic formula that you Indians shout about, but practice with hypocrisy.

Do your own readings, up till recently some of the European countries use to directly collect taxes for the Church, some still do I think, the Church Bishops have memberships in the Parliament and some are not secular officially, but in practice they are very much secular.

Please understand the subject before so arrogantly making statements about it. You clearly don’t know anything, don’t Mumble Jumble.

"If you are saying secular country shouldn't have religious laws, then I am agreeing with you"

If you agree with me then what points were you trying to make above, why are to writing silly and childish replies, YOU ARE CONFUSED, you don’t know what’s what and you don’t know what you believe.

Just to remind you the topic was India’s judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, you’ve discussed everything except the topic in this thread. That only happens when a person is not clear in their head and just rambles on and on, hoping not to be caught out.

"Even this judgement is an discussion on religious laws I wholeheartedly agree."

I don’t fully understand what you said here, but if you agree that it is a religious judgment that should not have been done in principle, then what the heck are you crying about, you just agreed with everything I said. For God sake yaar, why are you wasting my time. I'm done with you.

"But India had to take care of religious sensitivity arising out due to partition and thus accommodated religious laws and it helped survive as an nation. Its time to go."

For one there was no partition because there was no Nation-State called India before 1947, India was a region that consisted of British colony and princely states, before that it was a region with many kingdoms, never a country.

SO WHAT PARTITION?????????????????????????????????????
It was Azadi, and Mubrak ho, tujay be oor mujay be.

Why personal law systems were kept is none of my business, you Indians do what you want, as long as people don’t suffer. But, whatever you do, if it affects me or my interests, I will have my say, and that’s exactly what I have been doing in this thread.

It is so shameful you lot are so full of hate for Islam and your own Muslim citizens, you people need to get rid of this hate or it will consume you completely, it probably already has, but I am still hopeful.


@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

I am going to try to explain it the last time to you and you sound utterly incoherent.

For the record, Hindus have been protesting against state control of temples as long as I can remember from the British days. Against both BJP and Congress. While other religion orgs are not under state control, Hindu temples have like lakhs of acres of land in which politicians can steal. In a secular state, govt shouldn't control religious organizations.

Second, on the state of personal laws, again I am saying the state shouldn't have personal laws for every religion. Should have a common civil law. While it's not the fault of Muslims the state has various personal laws, it was the hardline Hindus in 47', who wanted an personal law for them. But as days went by, Hindu and Christian laws has been modified to such an extent that they are mostly in line with Common civil code. Muslim Personal Laws haven't been touched till recently.

As for the most childish argument, when new laws come in, like for Aadhar law or ID number number of every citizen, there was a conflict btw privacy law and this law and the SC has to decide which law is supreme in what scenarios. This is the job of the Supreme Court. Of course since democracy is sparse in Pakistan you wouldn't know what's been like to have many interesting judgements in democratic countries. I can forgive you for that. That's the same thing happened in this judgement and in the previous TT judgement as well. Individual rights vs religious law was the question. Individual rights was the answer from SC.

What kind of secular democracy an country should follow is upto the country. Not you or France. Do we reserve posts on based on religion? Do we send every law to an religious body looking for its approval before passing every law? That's what Indian secularism is based on. Indian minorities have made it big due to religion shouldn't be an factor governing the masses. The state of Andhra Pradesh is ruled by an Christian and so was his father before him and that's a major state. FYI.

Rest of your post is pure garbage which I would like to ignore. PS I am a Tamil and proud Indian at that.
 
What if, a person is ready to surrender his/her personal freedom, in order to comply with his/her religious beliefs ? Will court allow that as per Article 15 of constitution ?

There is no contradiction in this scenario. If a women is willingly ready to forego property in favour of his brother, then who is the court to stop them?
Same goes for religious beliefs. If the women is ready to accept TT or Halala, the court has no jurisdiction. Its only when they approach the law then the case is decided.
 
Back
Top Bottom