Gender Discrimination in the Devolution of Property

I. Introduction

In every state, ownership and control over immovable property are key factors in creating women's economic independence and social stability. It is vital for the Legislature to ensure that no statute has discriminatory measures regarding men's and women's participation in property devolution concerns. As noted by the Law Commission of India in its 174th Report, “Discrimination against women is so pervasive that it sometimes surfaces on a bare perusal of the law made by the legislature itself. This is particularly so in relation to laws governing the inheritance/succession of property amongst the members of a Joint Hindu family. It seems that this discrimination is so deep and systematic that it has placed women at the receiving end.”²

Women's property rights are impacted by both legal institutions and societal prejudice, including a dominant patriarchal mindset in our culture, which has influenced law to include provisions on succession and property devolution that are fundamentally discriminatory against women. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality, while Article 15 forbids discrimination based on race or gender. The removal of discrimination prompted an overhaul of the Hindu succession laws in effect at the time, and the Parliament responded by enacting the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.³ The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs the succession of property and the transmission of assets possessed by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains in India. However, the aforementioned Act, which attempted to eliminate discriminatory practices in property inheritance based on gender, did not achieve its intended goal, as envisioned by the Parliament. Many contradictions in the Act's provisions clearly contradict the purpose of attaining gender equality in inheritance. The paper examines the inherent gender discrimination in laws pertaining to property devolution under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as well as the jurisprudence created by the Courts on the subject, as well as amendments for the future⁴.

II. Research Problem

In India, legislation governing persons in aspects of personal law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption) varied depending on the individual's faith. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs property inheritance among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs within this framework (HSA). This legislation covers the transfer of all Hindu assets. By introducing distinct processes for the devolution of property held by males and women, the HSA laws discriminate against Hindu women. These rules have the effect of unfairly favoring the husband's family over the wife's own family in the devolution system, despite the fact that the property belongs to the woman. The regulation dates from a time when it was impossible for Indian women to hold and gain property. These prejudices, however, continue to be committed against Hindu women in India today. The Hindu Personal Laws and their revisions, as well as the many Law Commission recommendations, provide for such a right for women, but there is still no practical development⁵.

Indian women's situations have remained unchanged, although their counterparts throughout the world continue to enjoy this right. This discrimination is in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution; it violates India's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and has a number of unfavorable consequences, particularly when the property in question is acquired by the woman through her own skill or effort. To achieve its goals, an effective social reform movement must rely on the rule of law and a friendly court. As a result, a framework must be built to assure women's empowerment, equal rights for men and women, an equal share of property, and so on.

III. Research Objectives

This paper aims to better the situation of women in the devolution of property by adopting a principle-based approach to amend the HSA comprehensively and remove the gender Discrimination in the devolution of property. It also attempts to achieve the objective of gender Neutrality through a social reform with the help of a sympathetic legislature and judiciary. A framework must be constructed to ensure women’s empowerment, equal rights and equal share of the property to men and women, etc.

IV. Research Questions

Whether the HSA's policies discriminate against Hindu women by providing distinct processes for the devolution of men's and women's property and whether these rules have the effect of unfairly favoring the husband's family over the wife's own family in the devolution system, despite the fact that the property belongs to the woman.

A. Analysis of Section 8 and Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act contains a comprehensive list of the husband's heirs, to whom his property passes if he dies intestate. The property of a Hindu man who dies intestate passes first to the Class I heirs, which comprise the wife, mother, children, and children of predeceased children⁶. If Class I has no heirs, then the Property passes to Class II heirs, who are further split into nine sub-categories. Each level of this hierarchy's heirs prohibits the heirs below them from inheriting any property. The father of the dead, the deceased's siblings, the sibling's offspring, and the deceased's grandparents are among the Class II heirs at the top of the hierarchy. Third, if none of the two groups has any heirs, it falls to the deceased's agnates, and if there is no agnate, it falls to the deceased's cognates⁷.

If a man dies intestate, childless, and without a living spouse, his mother takes precedence over his father, siblings, and then other distant relatives⁸. In contrast, property held by Hindu females

who die intestate passes first to the deceased's children and spouse. If there are no surviving husbands or children, it falls to the husband's heirs. If the spouse has no heirs, the inheritance is passed on to the woman's parents if she dies intestate. If there are no parents, the estate is passed

on to the heirs of the deceased's father, and if there are no heirs of the father, the estate is passed on to the heirs of the deceased's mother⁹. Thus, when a woman's property is devolved, the husband’s heirs, which include his biological relatives, are given priority over the woman's own parents and siblings due to the application of Section 15(1). Due to the vast list of the husband's heirs, the woman's parents and siblings seldom receive the property. Section 8 provides that the male's property cannot pass to the wife's birth kin. This woman's property includes both property that was given to her throughout her lifetime and property that she earned through her own ability and labour. If she dies childless, her husband's distant relatives will be given precedence over her natal family in the devolution of the property.¹⁰ The discrimination implicit in this disparate treatment under Sections 8 and 15(1) is not over. Further, if the woman's natal family receives her property after her death, her father's heirs will take priority over her mother's heirs in the property's succession. The reason for this discriminatory treatment is frequently thought to be the legislature's goal to ensure that the property rights of the joint Hindu family as a collective entity take precedence over the interests of the household's female members.¹¹This is retrograde thinking from the past, and the current legislature must alter the provisions to remove the underlying gender prejudice that exists in them.

B. Devolution of Separate Property under Section 15(2)

Under Section 15(2), if a woman intestate has no surviving children: 1. In case of any property the woman inherited from her father or mother, the property devolves upon the heirs of her father.¹² 2. In case of any property the woman inherited from her husband or father-in-law, the property devolves upon the heirs of the husband.¹³ The source of the property is essential in the case of a female dying intestate. Exceptions under section 15(2), related to exceptional property, apply when a female dies with no surviving children or children of predeceased children, leaving behind property inherited from her parents, or her husband or father-in-law.

The property devolves to the woman's husband's heirs or her father's heirs, depending on the source from whence she acquired it. If she receives property from her husband or father-in-law, it will be passed on to her husband's heirs. If she inherited the land from her father or mother, it would pass to her father's heirs. According to Section 15(1) of the HSA, the property gained by the woman from any other source devolves. The exclusions to the general rule of succession in the instance of a female dying intestate, codified in Section 15(2), ingeniously disguise a purpose to guarantee that property does not flow from one family to another just because a woman died intestate.

In general, once a person inherits property, it becomes his distinct property and transfers to his heirs according to the laws of succession. However, according to Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if a woman receives property from her husband, father-in-law, or parents and dies intestate without a surviving child, the property passes to the heirs of the person from whom she received the property.¹⁴ As a result, under the HSA, the woman is just a temporary owner of the property throughout her lifetime, and it cannot be called her own property in the true sense because it cannot be sold. Her heirs would be held accountable in such a circumstance. It is instead up to the heirs of those she has acquired. The source of the property If she inherits property from her father or mother and dies childless, she leaves no heirs. The property will belong to her father's heirs if only her spouse survives.¹⁵

Because her heirs are not her brother, sister, or other relatives, but rather the heirs of her parents or father-in-law, the lady is said to lack her own identity. This is not the case in the case of a man dying intestate. Section 8 makes no distinction between general and separate property and specifies universal processes for selecting heirs and the scheme of succession in the case of a man dying intestate. Except for Hindu and Parsi succession law, no other Indian succession law grants statutory priority to a married woman's in-laws over her own blood kin.¹⁶ To address the inherent gender inequality in the said provisions, the National Commission for Women has pushed for the repeal of the rules applicable to females dying intestate and the amendment of the

rules for males dying intestate to include females as well, in order to achieve uniformity, and the same should be pursued on a priority basis if we are to rid the Hindu Succession Act of its inherent gender inequality.¹⁷

C. Case Laws pertaining to Gender Discrimination

• Om Prakash and Others v. Radhacharan and Others -

In Om Prakash v. Radhacharan¹⁸, the Supreme Court of India heard a challenge to the scheme of devolution for a woman's self-acquired property under the HSA. It describes how a party is failed by the Apex Court when it is toxically attached to the word of the law. The idea is to tell what happens when a court can see what is right and wrong before their eyes yet deliver injustice just because the codified law binds them. The Appellant's attorneys argued that section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sub-section¹⁹, should be applied because the deceased's in-laws did not contribute to her education or support her while she was alive. It was claimed that the legislative intent underlying clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 should be used to interpret the provision. On the other hand, the respondent's lawyer argued that because the Act of 1956 did not contain any particular provisions for the devolution of self-acquired property, the deceased's property should be devolved as per section 15 (1) of the Act, which specifies the method of devolution. The Court uses a "literal interpretation" of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to rule that the claim will go to the husband's family. The fact that the deceased's property was self-acquired and that she got her education and job at her ancestral home was undeniable. The matter addressed before the Court was whether or not a transfer of the deceased's self-acquired property was subject to Section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

The Court assumed that the husband's family's claim that the deceased received no support from his family was valid but added that simply because a case is complicated, a different interpretation of a statutory provision would not be applied, which is otherwise prohibited. The Court held that the Act did not prevent women from making their will. Since the statute is silent on the devolution of self-acquired property in the event of a Hindu female dying intestate, under the golden rules of interpretation, the standard rule of succession is provided in section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would prevail. However, the Court further ascertained that the criteria for interpreting law could not be influenced by sympathy and sentiments. The legislative intentions are apparent in the HSA text, and the Court has not looked beyond legislative arrangements. As a result, the husband's heirs have priority over the female's parents under the HSA's devolution process, giving them a legal claim to her self-acquired property. Although the Supreme Court was appropriate in aligning its ruling with the legislative objective inherent in Section 15 of the HSA, this decision establishes a bad judicial precedent. Former Madras High Court Judge Ms Prabha Sridevan's article on the gender imbalance under Section 15 of the Act supports changing the order of succession to a Hindu woman's property²⁰. The author discusses the ineffectiveness of judicial redress due to established patriarchal traditions and feels that the law is patriarchal and unjust in its treatment of a woman's property. The author suggests that in addition to inherited properties under the provision, other property acquisition methods, such as acquisitions from parents or because of parents, could be incorporated, as, in contemporary times, many women acquire property by themselves based on the support of their parents²¹.

The former Supreme Court judge, Dr Justice AR Lakshmanan²², in light of the societal change considered the need to amend section 15, points out that the order of transfer reflects the patriarchal assumptions when looking at the source of the property acquired by the female intestate, and that the situation of self-acquisition of property by women was no longer possible. He believes that section 15 should be amended to explain the rules of devolution of self-acquired property and proposes that self-acquired property devolve equally upon her husband's heirs and her natal heirs.²³ Consequently, the Court's decision can be classified as problematic and unjust. The Omprakash decision establishes that the judiciary is effectively weakened by a legislative flaw relating to the devolution of self-acquired property of an intestate Hindu female²⁴. As a result, legislative reform is the only way to address the inequity and unjust provisions that have arisen. Many responsible institutions were motivated by the Omprakash v. Radha Charan case law. They accepted responsibility for amending national laws.

• Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa -

This is a landmark decision toward reforming Hindu female intestate succession laws²⁵. The Court had to decide whether the devolution of a female Hindu's intestate property under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was "unconstitutional," in breach of Section 15²⁶. The Court ruled that the principles governing Hindu female succession for the goods stated in Section 15 are entirely distinct and different from those governing Hindu male succession in Class I of the Schedule²⁷. When a father's parents are favoured over a mother's parents, all of whom are grandparents, there is apparent gender discrimination.

Similarly, gender prejudice would occur if the father's siblings were chosen above the mother's siblings. Discrimination exists, and the Centre rationalizes it as "patriarchy." Apart from gender, there is no particular class of segregation in this case. As a result, it is influenced by Article 15 of the Constitution. It should be noted that property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father is obliged by law to remain in the family²⁸. In accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu is not mandated to continue in that line. As a result, the Court ruled that the aforementioned sections were 'unconstitutional.' However, the case is still pending before the division bench of the Bombay High Court. The new Legislation will aid in decreasing existing arbitrariness and bringing about constructive legislative improvements. "The egalitarian bluestocking that the Hindu society may have become, in consonance with the constitutional mandate, it has still left untouched perhaps the last discriminatory corner of the Hindu Society which has otherwise come of age and which would have to be looked upon as wanting in an equal society." — Justice Dalvi, in Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa [LNIND 2012 BOM 748]²⁹

• Sonubhai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav -

It is worth noting that the constitutional validity of section 15 in question was previously argued in Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav³⁰ because it discriminates between "the heirs of husband" and "heirs of the wife." While ruling in its favour, the Court held that recognition and reference to the husband's heirs was simply a logical, necessary step to continue that unity in the family³¹. A rule of devolution begins to operate when "a wife", as distinct from a mere female, dies regarding inherited property from husband, heirs being described as husband's heirs that are made to succeed³². The Court's reasoning that a woman is considered a part of her husband's family after marriage sounds persuasive at first but cannot be supported compared to other personal laws³³. In the devolution of her property, no additional personal laws superimpose her relationship with her parental family on that of her married family, nor do they classify the heirs based on whether her property was gained through inheritance from her parents or her husband.

• Dr G. Krishnamurthy v/s The Union, Rep. By its General Secretary & Another -

In Dr G. Krishnamurthy v Union of India³⁴, the constitutional validity of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 was called into question by the Madras High Court, where the petitioner requested that the Act be declared "unconstitutional." The petitioner argued that the change to Section 6 aimed to reverse the idea of the customary shastric rules governing the Hindu law in a single stroke³⁵. Following the repeal of Section 23, it is conceivable that a Hindu lady will remarry and continue to live in a dwelling house entirely occupied by members of a Hindu intestate's family. Concerning Section 24, the petitioner said that by granting widows the right to inherit an intestate's property even after remarriage, the fundamental fabric of the notion of a "Hindu joint family" would be "destroyed." The petitioner further claimed a 'discrepancy' in Class-II of the Schedule since some legal heirs of male members are not listed³⁶. The Court found insufficient evidence to support the defendants claim that the Act was 'unconstitutional' and held that the Act was designed to eliminate gender discrimination. As a result, the amendment was intended to secure women's protection under Articles 14, 15, and 16of the Indian Constitution. When it came to Section 23 of the Act, it had been left out to eliminate the "disability on female heirs." The decision was taken with the broader public interest in mind. Section 23 of the Act had to be repealed since it was simply a "disabling provision." Section 24 of the Act established a new kind of 'statutory discrimination against 'widows remarrying qua inheritance.' This was correctly deleted since a woman cannot be deemed "unsuitable" for property upon remarriage. The change to Class I is just a consequence of the amendment to Section 6. It qualifies only those heirs who have the right to property pursuant to section 6. As a result, the challenge to the inclusion mentioned above made to Schedule Class-I was also dismissed. Whenever Legislation advances women's rights, the country's people face fierce resistance due to a male-centred society. One such occurrence is this case. In a rare event, the High Court of Madras has surmounted this hurdle quite dramatically. The High Court of Madras correctly pointed out that every section in the Amendment Statute was used to safeguard and promote women's rights and was brought into play to abolish the prejudice in principle Act. Moreover, even if the Legislation were written to the disadvantage of males, the Act would not be illegal since Article 15(3) enables the State to take measures for the advantage of women.

• Partap Singh v. Union of India &Oks

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was challenged in Partap Singh v. Union of India³⁷, among other sections. A writ petition was filed challenging the 'constitutional validity of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claiming that the provision in Section 14(1) was vague and uncertain, and that, in light of the observations made by this Court in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. V. Sesha Reddy³⁸, the section could no longer be relied upon, and that it violated Articles 14 and 15(1) by attempting to favour only one segment of the society, Hindu women, based on sex, thereby prejudicing male members. The Supreme Court held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is clear and enforced. In Tulasamma, the Supreme Court gave effect to such a provision. The observations were made solely to draw to Parliament's attention that the provisions of Section 14 needed to be revised to avoid any potential litigation stemming from the imprecise wording employed therein³⁹. On the other hand, the Court had little trouble interpreting and implementing Section 14 and ruling that the property likewise became the female's "absolute property." It argued that Section 14(1) was intended to ease the distress of a Hindu woman could not demand an absolute stake in her husband's property but was only enabled to enjoy her by all the "restrictions" associated with a widow's Hindu heritage. There is no reason for Hindu men to object to the beneficial provisions in Section 14(1) of the Act on the grounds of "hostile discrimination." These provisions should also be safeguarded in accordance with Article 15(3). Once again, the Court has gradually interpreted a provision that advances women's rights as good Legislation. This has become fresh, especially given the patriarchal foundation of the customs on which the Legislation relates to Hindu personal laws⁴⁰. In reality, this amendment was made to alleviate the gender inequalities in the principal Act. The Court has accurately adopted the position that the relevant section is constitutional, being aware of the aim and the necessity to safeguard and promote women's rights. As previously mentioned, the Constitution enables the Parliament to provide for women's empowerment and upliftment expressly. This provision is thus protected by Article 15(3) of the Constitution.

V. Suggested Reforms

The argument that the judiciary should not intervene in personal legislation is flawed, and urgent amendments are needed to abolish the Hindu Succession Act's inherent gender discrimination. Legislations that discriminate have been questioned by the Judiciary before. Sections 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 were challenged before the Court in the cases of Ammini E J and etc v Union of India and Others⁴¹ and N Sarada Mani v G Alexander and Anr.⁴² Moreover, there have been progressive changes in the Hindu law itself, for example, the amendment⁴³ in Section 6 giving women equal coparcenary rights⁴⁴ and deletion of Section 23, which deprived women of sharing the dwelling house. It was recognized that, while there can be distinct regulations for different religions, there cannot be separate rules for different sexes, and so the judiciary has the power to act in the latter circumstance.

The National Commission on Women issued the following proposals for truly gender-neutral devolution programmes: -

First, it stated that The property of a Hindu dying intestate shall devolve upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the schedule; b) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the schedule; c) Thirdly, if there is no heir of either of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; d) Finally, if there is no agnate,⁴⁵

Second, section 15 must be omitted.⁴⁶ This suggestion by the NCW appears to be appealing at first instance but a closer examination reveals a different picture. Firstly, it retains the Schedule to the Act, as is, therefore, it retains the discrimination against persons related to the deceased through female relatives, and privileges persons related through male relatives, as pointed out in Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa⁴⁷ . Secondly, this amendment also gives preference to agnates over cognates, thus prioritizing male lines over female lines. ⁴⁸ Third, it does not advocate for the elimination of HSA provisions such as Sections 10, 11, and 16 that would be rendered obsolete by the modification. As a result of the aforementioned inadequacies, we must look beyond the NCW's suggestions in order to change the HSA.⁴⁹

To ensure that the scheme of devolution for male and female intestates is identical, Sections 8 and 15 have to contain similar language or alternatively Section 8 should be applied to both men and women.⁵⁰ The author advises the latter so that there is less room for misunderstanding. The particular adjustment required is to modify Section 8's language from "The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve..." to "The property of a Hindu person dying intestate shall devolve..." This amendment would also necessitate the removal of Sections 15 and 16, which now establish the devolution plans for the property of a female intestate.

VI. Conclusion

Despite women's considerable presence in property law, many people are unaware of the legal provision that renders women equal coparceners and heirs to male counterparts. In the event of self-acquired property, it is nevertheless common in society for mothers and dads to list sons as beneficiaries in their Wills but fail to name daughters because they are married and no longer regarded as a member of their family.

There is also a dearth of knowledge among women that they are equal co-parents to males. Law has also changed in response to cultural changes, with people being more outspoken about their LGBTQ identities, which were formerly suppressed. With the approval of LGBTQ marriage relationships, it is critical that their property rights and other civic rights be explained and codified in a precise manner.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at Christ University, Bangalore, India.

2. th Report on Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law, Law Commission of India (2000) ↩

3. Venkatraman, S. (1978) “Intestate and testamentary succession amongst Hindus” in K. D. Gangrade (ed), Social Legislation in India, Vol. II, New Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd. (Rep. 2011), 49–64. ↩

4. Pranav Karwa, Gender Discrimination in the devolution of Property under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, KNOW LAW, (20th October,2021, 7:00 PM ) https://knowlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Gen der-Discrimination-in-the-devolution-of-Property-un der-Hindu-Succession-Act-1956-KnowLaw-Journal.pdf ↩

5. Satyajeet Mazumdar, Anurag Gupta , GENDER ISSUES AND LAND RIGHTS UNDER HINDU PERSONAL LAW IN INDIA, CENTRE FOR JUSTICE, ( 22th October,2021, 7:00 PM ) https://www.centreforsocialjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gender-Issues-and-Land-Rights.pdf ↩

6. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 8, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). ↩

7. Supra at 5. ↩

8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 15, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). ↩

9. Supra at 7 ↩

10. Report of the Law Commission of India, 2018. ↩

11. Report of the Hindu Law Committee ↩

12. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 15, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). ↩

13. Id. ↩

14. Supra at 7 ↩

15. Radhika v Ahgnu (1996) 2 HLR 244 (SC). ↩

16. V. Kumara Swamy, Unfair deal, The Telegraph, 20 May 2009, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090520/ jsp/opinion/story_10993177.jsp. ↩

17. National Commission of India, Review of Laws and Legislative Measures Affecting Women, No. 19 on The Hindu Succession Act 1956 (30 of 1956), http://ncw.nic.in/frmReportLaws19.aspx. ↩

18. Omprakash and Others v. Radhacharan and Others (2009) 15 SCC 66 ↩

19. Prabha Sridevan, A law that thwarts justice, The Hindu, 26 June 2011 https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-law-that-thwarts-justice/article2137110.ece ↩

20. Supra at 2 ↩

21. Vipasha Chirmulay, Section 15 Of The Hindu Succession Act 1956: Gender Bias And The Need For Reform, LIVE LAW, ( 22th October,2021, 9:00 PM ) https://www.livelaw.in/columns/section-15-of-the-hindu-succession-act-1956-hindu-female-intestates-property-179726 ↩

22. Dr Justice AR Lakshmanan , Let us amend the law, it is only fair to women, The Hindu, 24 July 2011 https://www.google.com/amps/s/www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/let-us-amend-the-law-it-is-only-fair-to women/article2288188.ece/amp/ ↩

23. Supra at 4 ↩

24. Supra at 1 ↩

25. Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa [LNIND 2012 BOM 748] ↩

26. Prakriti Agarwal, Is The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Constitutional? YOUTH KI AWAAZ , ( 30th October,2021, 9:00 PM ) https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2017/01/is-the-hindu-succession-act-1956-constitutional/ ↩

27. Supra at 24. ↩

28. Supra at 25 ↩

29. Shibu Thomas, HC takes on gender bias in succession law, Times of India, 9 November, 2012 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/hc-takes-on-gender-bias-in-succession-law/articleshow/17149791.cms ↩

30. Sonubhai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav [AIR 1983 Bom 156] ↩

31. Id. ↩

32. Id. ↩

33. Supra at 31. ↩

34. Dr. G. Krishnamurthy v/s The Union, Rep. By its General Secretary & Another, W.P.No. 14984 of 2009 & M.P.No. 1 of 2009 ↩

35. Supra at 14 ↩

36. Id. ↩

37. Partap Singh v. Union of India & 1985 AIR 1695 ↩

38. V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. V. Sesha Reddy 1977 AIR 1944 ↩

39. Id. ↩

40. Supra at 17. ↩

41. Ammini E J and etc v Union of India and Others, AIR 1995 Ker 252 ↩

42. N Sarada Mani v G Alexander and Anr. AIR 1998 AP 157. ↩

43. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, available athttp://www.hrln.org/admin/issue/subpdf/HSA_Amendment_2005.pdf. ↩

44. See Prakash and Others v Phulavati and Others (2016), holding that the amendment is also retrospectively applicable; and Sujata Sharma v Manu Gupta (2015), reaffirming the amendment’s spirit and ruling that the provision of equal coparcenary rights to women in the Hindu Undivided Family results in allowing them to become the karta (manager) of the Hindu Undivided Family as well. ↩

45. Supra note 18 ↩

46. Id. ↩

47. Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa [LNIND 2012 BOM 748] ↩

48. Id. ↩

49. Archana Sridhar “The Conflict Between Communal Religious Freedom and Women Equality: A Proposal for Reform of Hindu Succession Act 1956”, 50 Berkeley Journal of International Law 558 (2002). ↩

50. National Commission of India, Review of Laws and Legislative Measures Affecting Women, No. 19 on The Hindu Succession Act 1956 (30 of 1956), http://ncw.nic.in/frmReportLaws19.aspx. ↩