Give the definition of Stridhan as given by Vijnaneswara in the Mitakshara and compare the attributes of Stridhan with those of Widow's Estate.

Question: Give the definition of Stridhan as given by Vijnaneswara in the Mitakshara and compare the attributes of Stridhan with those of Widow's Estate.

Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [Give the definition of Stridhan as given by Vijnaneswara in the Mitakshara and compare the attributes of Stridhan with those of Widow's Estate.]

Answer

Mitakshara is a commentary on Yajnavalkaya Smriti by Vijananeswara as told by his Guru Visvarupa. Vijananeswara deals with several important topics of law, classifying them with reasonable precision without any trifling or discussions. As per the ancient Hindu jurists before 1956, woman's property was split into two heads: Stridhan and women's estate.

But in Hindu law, it has all been given a technical meaning. The right of a woman to hold and dispose of property has been recognized in Hindu law. The woman has not been denied the use of the property as an absolute owner at any stage.

Definition of Stridhan

The earlier meaning of Stridhana by the Mitakshara commentary is that Stridhan is what was given to a woman by father, mother, husband, or her brother or received by her at the nuptial fire (the wedding fire where the bridegroom takes vows) or presented on her succession.

According to Mitakshara, the property may be divided into two categories on the basis of the women's independent power of disposal over it.

● Saudayika Stridhan

Property acquired by a married or unmarried female, by her husband or mother, in the position of her husband or father, is called Saudayika. All kinds of Saudayika are completely at the discretion of the woman, she can invest, sell or give it for her own pleasure. Her husband has no power over the deals or use of Saudayika.

● Non-Sauyadika Stridhan

All the remaining forms of Stridhan fall under this group. A woman does not have the right to dispose of the Stridhan property during the cover-up without the consent of her husband.

The Dayabhaga commentary rejects the term stridhan and states that she has all the power over the property given to her even during the life of her husband. The word Stridhan literally means women's property. 'Stri' means women and 'dhan' means property togetherly constitute the word Stridhan. It includes all types of movable and immovable property such as ornaments, cash, deposits, etc.

In modern Hindu law, any property held by a woman as stridhan before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 comes under as property in Section 14 of the Act. According to Section 14 of the Act, any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as the full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. This Act has brought major changes to women's property and it gives absolute power to women over their property.

Case laws dealing with the concept of stridhan

Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372

The Punjab and Haryana Court divided the gifts and dowry given to the bride under three heads:

1. Articles are given to the bride for her exclusive use.

2. Articles given that are to be used by her and the husband.

3. Articles given which are to be used by her husband and laws.

Only the first and second categories were considered as Stridhan and only in these categories the wife had exclusive rights. The properties meant for joint usage will be under joint custody.

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 AIR 628 :1985 SCR (3) 191

The Supreme Court disagreed with the view of the Punjab and Haryana Court and held that all the articles, ornaments, clothes, and all other items come under Stridhan and the women will have absolute and complete power over it.

Bhai Sher Jang Singh v. Smt. Virinder Kaur, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1979 CriLJ 493

It was held if a woman claims property, ornaments, money, etc. which were given to her at the time of marriage, then the husband and his family members are bound to return back such property. If they refuse to return the property, then they will have to face strict punishment. The Court held that Bhai Sher Jang Singh and his family had committed an offence under Section 406 of IPC for committing criminal breach of trust as they had dishonestly misappropriated the ornaments which were the stridhan that Virinder had given to her husband for safekeeping.

Widow's estate

The Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act was passed in 1937 as per which on the death of the husband, his share in the presence of his widow did not go by survivorship to the surviving coparceners, but went to her so that she could maintain herself with this share. The widow has full power to dispose of it during her lifetime, and it is only when she manifests during her lifetime a clear intention to treat it as an accretion to her husband's estate, or allows it at her death to remain undisposed, that such property will become part of that estate.

A Hindu widow in possession as such of her husband's estate is not liable to account to anyone but is at liberty to do what she pleased with the property during her lifetime, provided only that she does not injure the revision. Furthermore, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 also brought radical changes in the nature of the property held by a widow.

Right to same "same interest" does not make widow coparcener

The widow is entitled to the same interest that the deceased husband had. The deceased husband had a right by birth in the property whereas the widow gets the right after his death. Therefore, the widow cannot be called a coparcener but would simply remain a member of a joint family(Madras v. Lakshmanan Chettiar,(1941) ILR). Furthermore, she has a right to claim partition as she only acquires the status of coparcener but does not become a coparcener[Rosamma v. Chenchiah, (1943) 2 Mad LJ 172].

Quantum of nature of share

When the question of quantum of share arose it was held that it was a fluctuating interest till she ascertained it by asking for partition and once claimed the share is ascertained [Kallian Rai v. Kashi Nath, (1943) ILR All 307]. But if the widow dies without seeking a partition the interest would be taken by survivorship by the surviving coparceners.

Whether the share by the widow is received by survivorship or inheritance

The predominant and appropriate view preferred inheritance as a means of receiving the share by the widow. As being a female and a non-coparcener, she was not entitled to the doctrine of survivorship(Jadobai v. Puranmal, AIR 1944 Nag 243).

Absolute owner of the property

The Act of 1937 converted the limited interests of the widow in the inherited property of her deceased husband into absolute interests. In Amarjit Kaur v. Preeto, AIR 2017 P&H 63, it was held that where a Hindu woman inherits her husband's property upon his death and retains the possession her interest would mature into absolute ownership and she would be entitled to full ownership of the entire property. The same issue was also highlighted by the Hindu Succession Act 1956 under section 14 which removed the disability of a woman to hold the property from whatever may be the mode, as a full owner that included the power to dispose of it at her pleasure. Furthermore, it was held that a Hindu widow who becomes an absolute owner of the property held by her husband is perfectly capable of alienating her property in favor of anyone, and a person who challenges such alienation on the ground that it is ancestral property must bring sufficient proof failing which his prayer would be dismissed [Sher Sing v. Baghera Singh, AIR 2018 (NOC) 465 (P&H)].

Loss of absolute estate

In three cases the limited estate would not be converted into an absolute estate they are:

● If the widow dies before the Act is passed.

● If the widow relinquishes her estate or transfers it in favor of another person and parts with the possession.

● If the widow remarries all her rights, interests, and titles in the property of the former husband would come to an end (Balak Ram v. Rukhi, AIR 2016 CHG 68).

Hindu Law – Notes, Case Laws, And Study Material

Test Series for Competitions