In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court asserted that neither legislative provisions nor traditional Hindu law restrict the rights of a woman to be the ‘Karta’ (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stressed that societal reluctance to accept this change should not hinder a woman’s rightful claim to the position of Karta. “Societal perceptions cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the legislature,” it said.
The case revolved around the question of Karta’s succession within an HUF after the demise of all sons of DR Gupta. Sujata Sharma, a granddaughter of DR Gupta, claimed her right as the eldest to be the next Karta. However, her assertion faced opposition from male relatives, with Manu Gupta declaring himself the Karta.
The court, in its decision on December 4, highlighted the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, providing equal inheritance rights to both Hindu men and women. It deliberated on whether recognising a woman as a coparcener could translate into her eligibility to become a Karta and manage the family property.
The court stressed that seniority by age and coparcener status were the only prerequisites for assuming the role of Karta.
While acknowledging that traditional law did not explicitly prohibit a woman from being a manager, the court noted that the requirement of being the “senior most male” was a necessary corollary under the previous law.
The 2005 amendment rectified this limitation by conferring coparcener status on women, equating their rights with those of sons. Referring to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the court said a daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth, including the right to be a Karta.
The provision clearly states that “a daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara Coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.”
The court rejected the argument that a female Karta’s husband would indirectly control the HUF’s activities, labelling it a parochial mindset.
“If a woman is proscribed from becoming a Karta in view of this reasoning as cited by the appellant, it will only render the legislative endeavour to give rights in immovable properties to women through Section 14 of the Act,1956, as a mere mirage. Ergo, a woman who has absolute ownership in a property cannot be denied a right to manage it on the warped reasoning that she may get influenced by her in-laws. Thus, societal apprehension and reluctance can never truncate legislative enactments to do away with patriarchal discrimination,” the court said.
The court affirmed that a woman with absolute ownership of property should not be denied the right to manage it based on societal apprehensions.
Comments
0 comment