Do Women Hold Property Rights Under Hindu Law?

Under Hindu law, women's property rights have seen substantial reform and progress. Historically, women's rights to property were limited, primarily allowing them control over their stridhan (personal gifts and assets). However, significant legislative changes, such as the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, have markedly improved their property rights. 

Introduction

Women have fought for their rights for many years. Despite significant progress, discrimination regarding equal rights for men and women persists across various aspects of life, including property rights, education, and employment. Although men and women often play different societal roles, comparisons frequently overshadow evaluations based on individual skills, abilities, and strengths. While women’s rights have evolved, ongoing development in areas such as property rights remains crucial.

Historical Evolution of Women's Property Rights

Earlier, under the name of the property, only stridhan was voluntarily given to the bride as a gift. It comprises all the gifts that brides receive from both families during the marriage and have rights over them. Furthermore, in the Dayabhaga School, women were entitled to property rights. The deceased’s wife has the right to inherit her husband's share and could enforce a partition against his brothers.

However, some restrictions were still present in this school, such as that the daughter(s) of the deceased father wasn’t entitled to inherit his share and were inherited by the nearest male member of the family. Apart from this in the Mitakshara School, women had very limited rights, particularly concerning ancestral property. The widow of a deceased coparcener also had no right to get his share.

Later in 1937, the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act came into force. However, the right to become the coparcener was still not granted. The widows were entitled to have a little of the deceased’s husband's share. This Act primarily focused on widow’s property rights, not women as a whole which led to the major drawback. In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was passed, which assured every woman would be entitled to enjoy property rights and face no discrimination.

Property Rights of Women under Hindu Law

Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act, 2005

1) In 2005, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, was amended and granted women the right to be a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family. In Mitakshara School, the daughter of a coparcener shall have the birthright to become the coparcener, just as the son of a coparcener.

2) Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act, 2005, provided that the property of a deceased coparcener shall be devolved by testamentary and intestate succession. During the devolution, the following three points will be considered:

• The daughter is allotted the same share as the son.
• The share of a pre-deceased woman or son shall be allotted to their child in the same manner she would have received if she had been alive.
• The share of a pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or pre-deceased woman coparcener shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

3) According to Section 14 of the Act, any woman who acquires property through inheritance, partition, purchase etc., before or after the commencement of this Act shall be a sole owner. She has the right to use the property without the consent or permission of any person.

Case Laws

In Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), provisions of the Chota Nagpur Act, 1908, were challenged as they benefit men only from the Schedule Tribes in the succession of property. The court held a few provisions to be unconstitutional; however, tribals are governed by different sets of customs that vary among people and religions. Hence, the court held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 though in terms, would not apply to the Scheduled Tribes, the general principles contained therein being consistent with justice equity, fairness, justness and good conscience would apply to them.

In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the respondent filed a suit in the trial court claiming a 1/7th share in her late father’s property that was acquired from her mother. After the amendment in 2005, she amended her suit, claiming that she had the right to become the coparcener and was allowed by the trial court.

She further presented the suit before the High Court, where it concluded that she had an equal share in her late father’s property as her brothers. Later, the appellant challenged the order before the Supreme Court, which overturned the order and held that the 2005 amendment shall not be applied to any partitions before its implementation.

In Danamma Singh v. Amar Singh (2018), two sisters and a widow attempted to claim a portion of their late father’s property that was rejected by their two brothers since the sisters were married and born before the Hindu Succession Act 1956. When the matter was challenged before the court, it was held that daughters have the right to become coparceners from birth. Irrespective of how late the Act and its amendments were made, they will not violate any woman’s rights.

In Veenita Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar (2020), a suit was filed claiming the position of coparcener and one-fourth of the share in her late father's property. The Supreme Court overturned the order in Prakash v. Phulvati and further held that females have the right to become coparceners since birth and it shall not be violated just because of the amendment made in 2005.

Conclusion

The property rights of women had a significant growth in society that led to breaking the discrimination. Continued efforts of various social workers resulted in a broad commitment by the law. However, legal awareness of the Acts needs to be spread widely to eradicate discrimination. Advocates and social workers need to close the gap between law and practice and create an environment where women's property rights are respected.

References

[1] Property Rights of Women in India, Available Here

[2] Women and their property rights in India, Available Here

[3] Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, Available Here

[4] Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 5 SCC 125

[5] Prakash v. Phulavati, Civil Appeal No. 7217 OF 2013

[6] Danamma Singh v. Amar Singh, (2018) 3 SCC 343

[7] Veenita Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 3717