The status of women’s right to inherit property has always been bleak. There has been constant struggle and agitation on their part to acquire equal rights to inherit their father’s ancestral property. Initially, women were devoid of the right to be “coparcener”- an individual who has an equal share in the inheritance of an estate. The evolution of women’s property rights has been gradual. Women were not delved with coparcenary rights owing to the belief of them being part of another family.
Hindu Successsion Amendment Ac 2015 act brought some monumental changes in the history of women’s right to inherit property. Under the act provisions of section 6 were amended whereby women were entitled to equally coparcenary rights as sons. They would be able to claim partition and possession of ancestral and self-occupied property of their father .
The aforementioned act brought some gender-neutral changes. Entitled women with coparcenary rights since birth like a son of a Hindu Joint family. Some other sections along with section 6 were amended and repealed concerning women’s right to seek partition and possession of the dwelling house or a widow’s right to inherit her husband’s property upon remarriage, section 4(2) was omitted, section 30 there was the substitution of words in order to enhance gender-neutrality. Further section 24 dealing with the inheritance of a husband’s property by a widowed woman upon her remarriage was repealed along with section 23 concerning the partition of a dwelling house.
Present Scenario
The position of women’s coparcenary right has been switched in a new judgment called “Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma” 5 articulated on the eleventh of august 2020. For this situation, it was held that the women will be qualified for coparcenary status and freedoms like sons regardless of whether they were born before or after the amendment.
The condition that fathers should be alive on the date of passing of the act that is (09.09.2015) isn’t required. The court gave the act a “retroactive” application. The verdict given by the bench in Prakash versus Phulvati case was overruled subsequently giving women equality. The court gave a choice on the two positions, first and foremost giving women equivalent coparcenary freedoms since birth and inconsequentiality of the father being alive upon the date of the amendment. All the equivocalness and disarray encompassing women’s succession rights were clarified.
Conclusion-
Slowly but surely things have changed. The process has been gradual but women of the present time are now endowed with equal inheritance rights like sons. The gender-unequal provisions are now laws of the past. Beginning from the Mitakshara law which discriminated against women by excluding them from sharing property. Hindu Succession act of 1956 too wasn’t a gender-neutral act and failed to live up to the expectations of social legislation.
Striking changes were bought with the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 which accorded women with coparcener’s status. Yet there were clashing lawful choices and a demeanour of disarray yet “Vineeta Sharma Case” gave a conclusive assertion on the concerned matter. The apex court gave its last decision and how it is the onus of courts and various bodies to maintain what has been articulated.
Written by Adv Rohit Yadav