Sharma v Sharma: A Case Comment

  • Thridhara Pathipati and Niitya Ranjan
  • Show Author Details
  • Thridhara Pathipati

    Student at Jindal Global Law School, India

  • Niitya Ranjan

    Student at Jindal Global Law School, India

  • img Save PDF


Although it has been seventy-four years since India gained independence, women’s rights to familial property have been very limited. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, accompanied by the judgements leading to Sharma v. Sharma have only been minor stepping stones towards achieving equality in matters pertaining to property rights. This case comment provides an insight into the historical discrimination faced by women by delving into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, along with its subsequent amendment which brought about important constitutional questions about equality under Article 14. We look at three important judgements- Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar & Others, Prakash & Ors. V. Phulavati & Ors, and Sharma v Sharma to show the trajectory of change that has taken place over the years to provide more inclusive laws with respect to inheritance. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the modifications that have taken place in the Hindu Succession Act over the years and the persisting challenges that it needs to address.


Research Paper


International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, Volume 3, Issue 5, Page 88 - 92


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLSI 2021