A newlywed bride who has been married for only three months, grieves her husband’s unfortunate death but is denied stay in her matrimonial home. How the society treats her and how the society treats her inheritance rights was the bottom rock of the case Om Prakash. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), was enacted as a progressive legislation to codify succession rights. However, beneath its surface lies a deep-seated gender disparity, most visible when comparing Section 8, which governs male intestate succession, and Section 15, which governs female intestate succession. This disparity has sparked significant legal battles and debates, most notably highlighted by the journey from the rigid ruling in Om Prakash v. Radhacharan 2008 to the constitutional challenge in Kamal Anant Khopkar v. Union of India.
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:―
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
U/S 8 it is stated that when a Hindu man dies intestate, his property devolves upon his heirs, prioritizing class 1 heirs which primarily includes his wife, children, and mother. The property remains within his own family lineage. In stark contrast, Section 15 dictates that if a Hindu woman dies intestate, her property first devolves to her children and husband, and subsequently to the heirs of her husband. A woman’s own parents are positioned to a lower priority, inheriting only if the husband has no living heirs which is hardly ever the case as Schedule 1 of Hindu Succession Act focuses on a long list of Class 1 heirs. This statutory framework is built on the patriarchal assumption that a woman’s primary allegiance is towards his husband’s family.
Section 15(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.―
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, ―
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother
In Om Prakash v. Radha Charan , Appellant Narayani Devi became a widow just three months into her marriage and was immediately driven out of her matrimonial home by her in-laws. She spent the rest of the 42 years of her living with her parents, who supported and educated her, enabling her to secure employment and generate self-acquired properties and funds.
When she died intestate, both her mother and her deceased husband’s family claimed her estate. Despite the matrimonial family having abandoned her decades prior, the Supreme Court strictly applied Section 15(1), ruling that her self-acquired property must go to her husband’s nephew rather than her own mother. By prioritizing statutory text over principles of equity, the Court perpetuated systemic gender bias and ignored the contributions of the woman’s natal family.
If we read 15(2) it states that-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),―
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
As the property was undisputably woman’s self acquired property , the exception laid down in 15(2)(a) will not apply here.
Moreover , According to Section 16 Rule 1–
Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. It further became a statutory requirement to prefer Husband’s hiers before woman’s own parents.
The woman is stripped off her fundamental right Article 14 as she was not being treated on par with her counterpart – Husband.
The fight for equality gained renewed momentum with Kamal Anant Khopkar v. Union of India. In this case, the mother of a deceased daughter challenged Section 15, arguing that its differential inheritance scheme creates discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioners have rightly pointed out that Section 15 is increasingly anachronistic in modern India, where a growing number of self-earning women acquire their own property and may not want distant relatives of their husband to hold a superior claim over their own parents. To free Section 15 from the shackles of gender disparity, the legislature and judiciary must take swift action to align inheritance laws with constitutional morality. The law must be amended to recognize a woman as an independent entity, rather than defining her solely through her marital relationships. True reform requires granting a woman’s natal family the same rights and security over her property as the husband’s heirs. Correcting these historical stereotypes is essential to achieving an egalitarian society.
