Status of Women’s Property Rights in India

Author: Deeksha Rao,  Government Law College,  Mumbai

Introduction:

India, the land of colors, the land of festivals, the land known for its uniqueness and richness is unfortunately burdened with the adversity of adding to its basket the title of “the land with contentions”. Although it is a very common notion and the ultimate dealings of any country, we still need to emphasise it in India’s context to understand the problem and avoid any further tarnation.
Money, property, gold, any tangible property; the legal issues related to their ownership and possession have flooded the courts. However, the intriguing fact about some of these cases is the consideration of whether a particular gender is even liable to claim her rights in an equal sense. The article will try to shower some light on the “Status of Women’s Property Rights in India”. The recent developments in personal laws and the talks of a Uniform Civil Code are very closely related to our topic in an empirical sense.
Irrespective of what form the future of personal laws in India will take, the current laws point towards a classification of property rights based on religion. The Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, etc, all communities and sects have their own set of laws to decide their property rights.

The Hindu Community:

The idea of women holding any property in the Hindu community cracked open the gates in 1874, with the Married Women Property Rights Act, which majorly revolved around her sole rights to own her “streedhan”, that is, the assets received by women at the time of her marriage. Another important act to understand the gradual development of Women’s Property Rights is the “Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act” or the “Deshmukh Act” of 1937. This act is widely known for introducing the concept of widows holding property, before this, the share of the husband was eliminated on his death. These developments accompanied by others in the upcoming years, for instance, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and 2005, have helped us move forward in a light that navigates us toward a country that believes in gender equality.
In a broad sense, properties are classified into ancestral and self-acquired as per ancestral texts like Mitakshara. While ancestral stands for assets that are inherited, self-acquired are the ones that have been attained by an individual during his lifetime. The current scenario of laws regarding the property of Hindu daughters stands tall since they are deemed eligible to get an equal share in both these dimensions of property as a result of judgments and reviews held by the courts in our country. The wives, widows, and mothers are also granted an equal share in properties.

The Muslim Community:

For the Muslim Community, in the absence of a will, the property is distributed according to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, of 1937. The act ‘substantively’ does not give any favored position to any gender and the claim of both, the sons and daughters are weighed in a tantamount manner. However, the application of these laws and the procedures have proved that this notion of equality lies in the name only, and does not justify it in its true sense.
Although daughters are given the right to inherit, the shares of the sons and daughters are proportioned based on gender, with daughters inheriting only half of what the son inherits. Similarly, a childless Muslim widow is liable to hold only one-fourth of her husband’s property, however, the proportion strikes down to one-eighth if she has a child or grandchild and further to one-sixteenth, in case the husband had another wife or wives.
The justifications provided for these laws include “mehr” and “maintenance”, it is said that since these provisions are in place, the women’s share is reasonably less than that of men. But it makes us question the relevancy of these laws in today’s world, in addition to making us wonder about the corresponding misuse of such laws. Another point that could be deliberated here is the subjection of one gender to the will of another.

The Parsi Community:

The Parsi community is tagged with the epithet of being one of the most successful communities in the world; unfortunately, the same level of flourishment is yet to be achieved when it comes to providing the women of the Parsi community with equal property rights. The Succession Act, of 1925 lays down the rules of distributing property between men and women in India. At the outset, the rules stand for equality, however, a close introspection of the laws points towards them being engulfed with gender bias.
The daughters, widows, and mothers of the community are the recipients of the effects of such unfortunate laws in the following ways-
Although Section 51 of the 1925 Act lays down rules to propagate the distribution of shares equally, the implementation shows a different trend with the daughter getting half of what the son’s share is; in the property.

Similarly, the widows also become victims of such gender-discriminatory laws. For instance, according to Section 53(a) of the 1925 act, a widow of a predeceased son who died childless has no share in the intestate’s property. Thus, subjecting the rights of women based on some other factor rather than her will and existence.

Even when we talk of the mothers of the deceased, her share is nearly half of what the daughter receives. However, such laws never take a disadvantageous stance when it comes to the male members of the family.
It was in 2017 only, with the case of ‘Goolrokh M. Gupta v. Burjor Pardiwala’, the Supreme Court took some steps to protect the rights of Parsi women. Before this, interreligious marriage by Parsi women was considered taboo, exempting them from all their rights in the community. Nevertheless, the path to overcome such biases is filled with holes and cracks and will require time and effort to be ameliorated.

The Christian Community:

The Indian Succession Act, of 1925 is also the statute followed by Christians to administer their corresponding distribution of properties. However, this act came to be used by the community only after the case of Mary Roy in 1986. She appealed in the Supreme Court for the denial of her part in her father’s property as per the Travancore Succession Act, of 1916. As a consequence of the case, the daughters of the community are held to be equally accountable for holding the properties, they get equal shares.
However, the widows of the community are not blessed with the same fortune and are subjected to the number and existence of lineal and kindred descendants for their share. The mothers also face the same fate and do not have any absolute right to property. These situations make us ponder over a wide spectrum of questions especially when these unjust laws are still a part of our society for a century or more.
Conclusion:
To conclude the article, it could be said that the above-mentioned details are just a drop in the ocean if we try to grab the essence of diversity and the corresponding diversified laws in our country. We need to confer our laws with principles of equality, responsibility, and sustainability if we are trying to add titles to our country’s name that make us more appreciative of the land we live in.