Lavanya Goinka
Women’s property was divided into two categories before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into effect: Stridhan (or women’s property) and Women’s estate.
The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 established a set of new inheritance rights on Hindu females, effectively raising the value of women’s wealth. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 made significant reforms to women’s property rights, as stated in Section 14 of the Act. The concept of “women’s estate” has been abolished, and Vijnaneshwara’s interpretation of Stridhan has been implemented. The distinction between Stridhan and women’s estate is largely determined by the source from which each is received.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) was passed to correct gender discrimination in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A coparcener’s daughter, like his son, becomes a coparcener in her own right at birth, according to the amendment. The subject of women’s property under Hindu law will be discussed in this article via the lenses of case law and judicial perspectives.
Women’s property under Hindu Law
As a consequence of the efforts of numerous social reformers, the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was enacted in 1937. As a result of the aforesaid Act, the theory of all schools of Hindu law was revised, granting Hindu women greater rights. This Act had a revolutionary impact on not just the law of coparceners, but also the laws of alienation, inheritance, partition, and adoption. It allowed a widow to share an equal share of her estate with her son while also preventing her from becoming a coparcener. As a result, widows only possessed a limited estate in their deceased husband’s property, with the option to partition it.
Despite the notion that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 was meant to enhance the property rights of all Hindu women, it was only concerned with improving the rights of widows, not all women. The status of a daughter’s right to inherit was similarly untouched by the mentioned Act of Legislature. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 drew a lot of criticism, so the Parliament decided to make a stronger law to preserve women’s property rights, and the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was enacted.
Stridhan
The Smritikars defined “Stridhan” as the property that a female got as a gift from her kin, which primarily consisted of movable property. Stridhan is reported to include gifts given by her wedding guests throughout both the bridal procession and the wedding ceremony. In the case of Bhagwandeen Doobey v. Maya Baee (1869), the Privy Council stated that the properties that a Hindu female acquires from males are not covered by Stridhan. Those properties will instead be classified as “women’s estate.”
In the case of Kasserbai v. Hunsraj (1906), the Bombay High Court established the theory of the Bombay School, which states that property inherited by a woman from other females is deemed Stridhan. In the well-known case of Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh (1912), the Allahabad High Court noted that it is accepted law in both the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools that any share obtained by a female from partition is not a Stridhan but women’s estate. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 declared the shared property received by partition to be an absolute property, or Stridhan. As the owner of absolute property, a woman has complete control over its alienation, which means she can gift, sell, lease, trade, mortgage, or do whatever she wants with it.
In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr (1985), the Supreme Court of India stated that, according to Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools, Stridhan comprises of the following items in the hands of a woman (maiden, married, or widow):
1. Gifts exchanged prior to the nuptial fire.
2. Gifts given during the wedding procession.
3. Gifts presented by her mother-in-law or father-in-law as a token of love on the occasion of her marriage.
4. Gifts from the moms, dads, and brothers of the women.
When a wife entrusts her Stridhan property to her husband or any other member of the family with dominion over that property, and the husband or such other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates or converts that property to his or her own use, or willfully allows another person to do so, he or she commits criminal breach of trust, according to the Supreme Court in Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1996).
Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, respectively, provide forth general norms of succession for female Hindus, as well as the order of succession and manner of distribution among a female Hindu’s heirs. In the 1980s case of Sundari and Ors v. Laxmi and Ors, the Supreme Court of India stated that Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956 allow for the succession of a female Hindu who dies intestate. The term “inherited” is used in Section 15(2) to denote “to receive as heir” or “succession through descent,” but it does not cover devolution under the dead owner’s Will. The Madras High Court noted this in the case of Komalavalli Ammal & Others v. T.A.S Krishnamachari & Others (1990).
Stridhan vis a vis dowry
Despite the fact that ‘Stridhan’ and ‘Dowry’ are two distinct words, they are sometimes used interchangeably. Under domestic law, dowry refers to any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given by the bride’s family to the bridegroom’s family before, after, or during the marriage. The most important contrast between ‘dowry’ and ‘Stridhan’ is that the former includes “demand, undue influence, or compulsion,” whereas the latter does not. Stridhan is a gift given voluntarily to women rather than as a result of coercion, undue influence, or force. The distinction between Stridhan and dowry has been established by Indian courts. The main reason for this distinction is because if a future marriage fails, the lady will be able to collect the things she received as Stridhan, whereas dowry gifts will not be recoverable.
After witnessing the sorrow of an alienated woman in the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985), the Apex Court defined the difference between dowry and Stridhan. It was agreed that the lady would be the sole proprietor of her Stridhan and could use it however she pleased. While the husband had no right or interest in the Stridhan in normal circumstances, it was decided that he could use it in times of extreme sorrow and must restore it when he was able.
The Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act of 2005, Section 12, guarantees a woman’s right to her Stridhan if she is a victim of domestic violence. The provision can be simply triggered in order to reclaim such a Stridhan. Under Section 18(ii) of the Act, a woman has the right to own the Stridhan in the form of jewellery, clothing, and other required objects. The term ‘economic abuse’ is also defined in the Act. It entails the woman losing all or any economic or financial resources to which she is entitled under all existing customary regulations, whether payable at the discretion of the court or not.
In the case of Bhai Sher Jang Singh versus Smt. Virinder Kaur (1978), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the groom’s side was required to restore all assets supplied by the bride’s family at the time of marriage, including property, jewellery, money, and other valuables, if claimed. If the groom’s family was denied, there were likely to be serious consequences. The Court found that Bhai Sher Jang Singh and his family committed a criminal breach of trust with respect to Virinder Kaur’s Stridhan, which she had entrusted to her husband for safe care but which he had dishonestly plundered.
Women’s Estate
The following are the two types of estate that are regarded to be a woman’s:
· Property inherited from another female – A property inherited by a female from another female falls under the Bombay School’s Stridhan. As a result, whatever is given to a female on purpose becomes her Stridhan, according to this theory.
· A female is entitled to obtain her fair share in the property on partition, but she does so only as a limited owner because her rights are limited in two ways: she cannot alienate the corpus (things or shares obtained in partition) in an ordinary manner, and her property will be entrusted to the next heir of the last full owner after her death.
Women’s power over her estate
In respect to her estate, a female is bestowed with four major powers:
· Power of Management — A woman has substantially more control over her estate than a Karta, because the Karta is only a co-owner of the joint family property due to the presence of other coparceners, whereas the woman is the only owner of her land.
· Alienation Power – A woman’s ability to alienate her property is limited, and she can only do so in exceptional circumstances.
· Surrender – Surrender refers to the female owner’s renunciation of the inheritance. Surrender can happen freely during a woman’s lifetime or automatically when she dies.
Conclusion
The Privy Council earlier held in Bhugwandee Doobey v. Myna Baee (1869) that a property acquired by a woman from her husband is not her Stridhan, and that such property will fall upon her husband’s heirs, not her heirs, following her death. Furthermore, the Privy Council declared in Debi Sahai vs Sheo Shanker Lal And Anr (1900) that a property gained by a daughter from her mother is the mother’s Stridhan, not the daughter’s, and that such property will pass onto the mother’s heirs, not the daughter’s, following the mother’s death.
As a result, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is a great step forward in safeguarding Hindu women’s property rights. As a result of this Act, women are being granted rights that have been denied to them for years. It is a watershed moment in the protection of women’s rights since it removes a woman’s inability to acquire and hold property as sole owner. Along with the legislation, equal credit should be given to the judiciary, which has given the terms of the legislation a broad interpretation while taking into account the nation’s overall social progress.