Supreme Court urges women without son, daughter and husband to make a will to avoid litigation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 19) appealed to all women without a son, daughter or husband to make a will to avoid possible litigation disputes between their parents and in-laws.

Referring to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the top court said that Parliament at that time may have assumed that women would not own self-acquired property, but the progress of women in these decades cannot be underestimated.

“The education, employment and entrepreneurship of women, including Hindu women, in this country has led them to achieve self-acquired wealth.

If such self-acquired properties are inherited only by the husband’s heirs, if a female Hindu dies intestate in the absence of sons, daughters and a husband, it is likely to cause resentment to the maternal family. The top court said, we do not make any comment in this regard also.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the suggestion while disposing of a PIL filed by a woman lawyer challenging Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

According to Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, when a Hindu woman dies intestate, her property devolves on her husband’s heirs before her parents.

The petition, filed by lawyer Snidha Mehra, argued that this provision is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and needs to be struck down.

He argued that if a female Hindu dies intestate in the absence of sons, daughters and a husband, her property would devolve only on the husband’s heirs.

“We appeal to all women and especially all Hindu women, irrespective of their age, who are likely to fall under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to take immediate steps to make a Will or bequeath their properties, including self-acquired properties, in accordance with Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.

“We say this not only to protect the interests of women in this country in general but also to protect the interests of women Hindus in particular so that any further litigation in this regard can be avoided,” the bench said.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, opposed the PIL, saying these are questions which have to be raised by the affected parties and cannot be attacked by the petitioner.

Nataraj said the provision dates back to 1956 and Parliament would not have contemplated the situation that a female Hindu would own self-acquired property.

The top court also directed that if a Hindu woman dies intestate and her parents or their heirs lay claim to her property, the parties must undergo pre-litigation mediation before filing any case in the court.

The bench said, any agreement reached in mediation should be considered as a decision of the court.

The bench said, “If the parents of a Hindu woman dying intestate or the heirs of her parents have a claim on the property of a Hindu woman dying intestate as referred to in Section 15(1)(c), (d) and (e) and Section 15(2) does not apply, then in such a case we direct the parties to first go for arbitration.” We direct that before any suit is filed or proceedings proceed in court, there should be mediation before litigation.”

The top court had earlier said that it would proceed cautiously while examining challenges to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that it would be wary of breaking the Hindu social structure and its basic principles that have existed for thousands of years.

It said that women’s rights are important, but there must be a “balance between social structure and granting rights to women”.

,