The law permitting women’s right to family property works, but only if the father passed away after 2005. In a major setback for many women across the country, the Supreme Court has said that a daughter’s right to ancestral property is not valid if the father died before the amendment to the Hindu law, which came into force in 2005.
The court held that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could not have retrospective effect despite it being a social legislation. The court said the father would have had to be alive on September 9, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer, with her male siblings.
This comes as a blow to many women seeking their share in their family’s property. The irony here is that many state high courts were of the opinion that since this is a legislation to provide equal rights to both genders, it should be enforced regardless of the date when the amendment was passed. However, the top court in the country shot down the idea.
“The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the amendment Act. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text,” said the bench.
The court has also maintained that the women’s right to property act is not valid if the property had already been divided before December 20, 2004 – the date the bill was introduced. Basically it means, you may get a share in your father’s property, but mostly not in the case of your grandfather’s property. It also means your mother may not get a share in her family’s property unless your grandpa was progressive enough to bequeath some to her during his lifetime.
Image Courtesy:BCCL
More on>> Balancing Act
