Karnataka High Court flags ‘inadvertent’ gap in Hindu Succession Act, asks Centre to recast laws on widows rights

The order, therefore, said a plain reading of Section 6, does not contain a reference to Class-1 heirs (widows and mothers of a person who has passed away) of the Schedule,” the court said.

‘Inadvertent’ gap in Hindu Succession Act

While modifying the trial court order, the court said highlighted its “duty to bring to the notice of the concerned” the observations.

“The un-amended Section 6, more particularly the first proviso, by reference to class-1 heirs of the Schedule, ensured a share at a notional partition to a widow and mother of the deceased, along with son, daughter. However, the amended Section 6 does not contain a reference to class-1 heirs of the schedule,” the court added.

The court further said that having regard to the statement of objects and reasons as noticed and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that the law makers did not contemplate or intend to take away the rights of a Hindu widow or mother of the a person who passesd away, as was provided in the unamended Section 6.

“It is by sheer inadvertence that the other Class-1 heirs, such as widow, mother, widow of predeceased son, etc., who find place in Class-1 of the Schedule and their rights flowing in terms of the unamended Section 6 have been missed out in the amended provision. A plain reading of the amended provision, Section 6, does not contain a reference to Class-1 heirs of the schedule,” the court noted.

The court said that it is the bounden duty of this court to draw the attention of the lawmakers in this regard. Perhaps, a recasting of the provision, with reference to Class-1 heirs of the schedule, is necessary to avoid confusion.

The bench, as a result, directed the registry to furnish a copy of its judgment to the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, to enable the Ministry to consider the observations made by this Court for further action.

Background

The case stems from the dispute over ownership and partition of the ancestral properties of a man who died in 2008.

The petitioners filed a plea against the trial court’s 2021 order regarding the partition and ownership of property between the late man’s first wife and three children and his second wife.

The alleged second wife and the three children of the late man are seeking a declaration that they are the full owners of the schedule properties and consequently enjoin the defendants from interference with the suit schedule property; further to declare the sale deeds executed by the first wife in favour of her brother as void and not binding on the share of the petitioners.

They further sought to declare that they, along with the alleged first wife, have a one-fifth share each in the suit schedule properties.

In the plea, both women claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the late man and made their claims.