A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING  HINDU WOMEN’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

Hindu women’s inheritance rights in India have evolved significantly since the enactment of  the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and its 2005 amendment granting daughters equal coparcenary  rights. Yet, the promise of equality remains largely unfulfilled. Legal provisions often collide  with entrenched customs, patriarchal norms, and social expectations that favour male heirs.  Married daughters, in particular, face dispossession due to patrilocal traditions, economic  dependence, and lack of awareness about their legal entitlements. Procedural hurdles and  administrative resistance further weaken the law’s impact. Certain statutory rules still carry a  patriarchal imprint, privileging a woman’s marital family over her natal family in succession  matters. This article explores the gap between law on paper and law in practice, arguing that  true gender equality in inheritance requires more than legislative reform — it demands social  change, judicial responsiveness, and public awareness to dismantle the structural barriers that  continue to limit women’s property rights.

INTRODUCTION

In India, inheritance law decides how a person’s property is passed on after their death, and it  is closely connected to family traditions, marriage customs, and how wealth is shared in society. Historically, patriarchal norms dominated, and before the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) of  1956, women faced open discrimination—male relatives often controlled even property  women purchased themselves. The Hindu Succession Act (HSA) codified intestate succession  for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, but excluded members of other religions. While it  marked progress in improving women’s inheritance rights, it still retained significant gender  bias. Section 15, for instance, directs that a deceased woman’s property often passes to her  husband’s family instead of her own natal family, as illustrated in Omprakash v. Radha Charan.  ¹Section 2(2) ²further perpetuates discrimination by excluding Scheduled Tribe communities  from the Act’s application, leaving many tribal women governed by patriarchal customary laws  that often deny them equal property rights. These provisions not only contradict Article 15(1), ³which prohibits gender-based discrimination, but also breach India’s obligations under the  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)⁴,  thereby sustaining systemic inequality for both mainstream and tribal women.Law Commission reports and courts have acknowledged this inequality, but real change  requires legislative amendment. While reforms like the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act  improved daughters’ rights in ancestral property, discriminatory provisions remain, particularly  in relation to a woman’s natal family. Persistent gender disparities in property rights demand  urgent action. Addressing socioeconomic barriers, ensuring equitable inheritance, and  expanding women’s rights are vital to creating a more inclusive society. Deep-rooted social  customs, lack of awareness about legal rights, financial reliance on male family members, and  resistance within legal and administrative systems have all contributed to its limited success on  the ground. These legal and societal barriers collectively contribute to the unequal realization  of inheritance rights for women across different regions, communities, and social strata in  India.

ASSESSING GENDER DISPARITIES IN HINDU INHERITANCE LAWS

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while intended to modernize inheritance laws, retains  structural gender bias, most notably in Section 15(1), which governs the intestate succession  of a Hindu woman’s property. This provision prioritizes the husband’s heirs—including his  extended family—over the woman’s own parents and siblings. In contrast, Section 8, which  governs a man’s property, does not recognize the wife’s natal family as heirs. Even in cases of  a woman’s self-acquired property, if she dies childless, distant relatives of the husband can  inherit ahead of her closest blood relatives. Furthermore, if a woman inherits land from her  mother, it still passes to her father’s heirs, bypassing her mother’s side entirely. Socially, it  discourages families from giving property to daughters, knowing it may revert to another  family, and weakens the financial security of widows and childless women.

Section 15(2) ⁵carves out two exceptions to the general rule, applying only when a woman dies  intestate without children or descendants of predeceased children. In such cases, property  inherited from her parents devolves upon her father’s legal heirs, and property inherited from her husband or father-in-law reverts to her husband’s legal heirs. Crucially, “inherited” in this  context refers exclusively to property acquired via intestate succession, not by will, gift, or  purchase. This narrow reading, affirmed in Jayantilal v. Chhanalal⁶and Dr. Shashi Ahuja v.  Kulbhushan Malik⁷, ensures that most property reverts to the marital line rather than the natal  line.

Judicial interpretations, such as in Balasaheb v. Jaimala, ⁸further clarify that property inherited  from relatives other than parents or husband is governed by the general rule in Section 15(1),  thus extending the husband’s family’s claim. Despite the 2005 amendment granting daughters  equal coparcenary rights, these provisions continue to undermine substantive gender equality  in inheritance law.

In Omprakash v. Radha Charan (2009), the Supreme Court applied Section 15(2) strictly,  returning property inherited by a woman from her father to her father’s heirs, bypassing even  close marital relatives. Such interpretations uphold outdated notions of lineage, making urgent  legislative or judicial reform essential to ensure women’s inheritance rights reflect  constitutional equality and gender justice.

The 174th Law Commission Report (2000) ⁹highlighted gender discrimination in inheritance  under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It noted that women were often denied property by both  marital and natal families. The report recommended adopting state reforms and repealing  Section 23¹⁰, paving the way for the 2005 Amendment, which granted all daughters equal  coparcenary rights regardless of marital status.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS IN TRIBAL  AND AGRICULTURAL LAND CONTEXTS

In Tribal Context

In India, inheritance laws for women vary across communities, with Scheduled Tribes  governed primarily by customary laws rather than the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) or  the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 2(2) of the HSA explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes, leaving tribal women subject to traditions that often deny them property rights. These customs,  protected under constitutional provisions, perpetuate gender disparity despite constitutional  guarantees of equality. For instance, in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), customary law  allowing only male succession to tribal land was upheld, citing preservation of tribal identity.

Judicially, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that tribal women should have inheritance  rights equivalent to men and urged legislative reform. It has clarified that HSA provisions may  apply if a tribe has assimilated Hindu practices, but cultural autonomy must be preserved. This  balance between equality and cultural identity remains a contentious legal issue.

In Agricultural Context

The repeal of Section 4(2) of the HSA in 2005 removed its protection for state laws excluding  agricultural land from women’s inheritance rights. In Nirmala v. Government of NCT (2010)¹¹,  the Delhi High Court held that HSA provisions override conflicting state laws such as the Delhi  Land Reforms Act, enabling daughters to inherit agricultural property equally. Similarly, in  Roshan Lal v. Pritam Singh (2012), ¹²the Himachal Pradesh High Court emphasized that  succession rights for women apply to all property types. However, in Archna v. DOC, Amroha  (2015)¹³, the Allahabad High Court maintained that agricultural land succession falls  exclusively within state legislative competence and the repeal of Section 4(2) of the HSA does  not automatically extend its application to agricultural holdings. Justice Ram Surat Ram held  that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) do not apply to agricultural  holdings in the state, as these matters fall under the UP-ZALR ¹⁴Act.

The Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) ¹⁵case shows the ongoing uncertainty around women’s  inheritance rights. The Supreme Court recognized that the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) applies  to agricultural land, but it did not clarify whether state laws on agricultural succession take  priority. As a result, women—especially in rural and tribal areas—face inconsistent rights,  revealing tension between gender equality, state autonomy, and cultural traditions.

In July 2019, the Uttar Pradesh Cabinet amended the Revenue Code to improve inheritance  rights for unmarried daughters, putting them on par with sons. However, married daughters  were still excluded, continuing gender discrimination. Previously, unmarried daughters were  often denied inheritance, with land passing to male heirs. The reform allows an unmarried  daughter’s daughter to inherit if she is the only heir, a right previously impossible without the  land going to the state. Despite these improvements, benefits vanish after marriage, forcing  women to choose between marital life and economic independence, highlighting the gap  between law and practice.

Customary Practices, Tribal Exclusion, and Regional Variations

While the HSA provides statutory guidance, customary laws and regional traditions heavily  influence property devolution. Mitakshara traditionally limited women’s inheritance, whereas  Dayabhaga granted widows life interest but not full ownership. Tribal women face additional  exclusion under Section 2(2), leaving them subject to customary norms that favour male  lineage in Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas. Courts have attempted interventions, as in Butaki  Bai v. Sukhbati¹⁶, applying the “test of Hinduisation,” but women bear the burden of proving  abandonment of custom. State-level variations, particularly in northern India, further restrict  married daughters’ inheritance of agricultural land, prioritizing sons or male relatives despite  the 2005 repeal of Section 4(2). These regional disparities illustrate that statutory reforms are  undermined by entrenched cultural norms and local practices. Consequently, women’s effective  access to property remains limited, and legal entitlement often fails to translate into social or  economic empowerment, leaving many dependent on male family members for security and  livelihood.

Implementation Barriers, Social Realities, and Need for Holistic Reform

Legal recognition of women’s inheritance rights does not guarantee practical empowerment.  Many women, especially in rural areas, remain unaware of their rights under the HSA and its  amendments, while social pressure and family opposition discourage claims. Procedural  hurdles, administrative resistance, and economic dependence exacerbate the gap between  statutory law and lived reality. Retrospective application of the 2005 amendment, disputes over  prior partitions, and testamentary transfers create interpretive challenges in courts. Patriarchal bias persists in enforcement, as husbands’ families are often prioritized over women’s natal  families, and discriminatory state provisions in agricultural land inheritance remain in some  regions. Closing this gap requires more than legislation: judicial responsiveness, awareness  campaigns, and social reforms are essential to dismantle patriarchal norms. Coordinated legal,  administrative, and social efforts are needed to ensure women can fully exercise inheritance  rights, achieving substantive equality in property access and aligning domestic law with  constitutional principles and international obligations such as CEDAW.

Judicial Correctives to Gender Discrimination in the Hindu Succession Act

While the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) was enacted to modernize inheritance laws for  Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, its original provisions retained significant gender biases.  Over the decades, the judiciary has intervened to reinterpret and reshape these provisions to  better align with constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15.

A landmark in this journey was Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), ¹⁷where the Supreme  Court settled conflicting precedents on whether a daughter’s right to coparcenary property  depended on her father’s survival on 9 November 2005, the date of the Hindu Succession  (Amendment) Act. Overruling earlier restrictive views, the Court held that daughters are  coparceners by birth, with equal rights as sons, regardless of when their father died. The  judgment clarified that “notional partition” is a legal fiction for determining shares and cannot  extinguish a daughter’s entitlement. To prevent misuse, the Court also mandated that partitions  after December 20, 2004, must be either registered or backed by a court decree, invalidating  oral partitions unless supported by convincing evidence.

In Ganduri Koteswaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2012¹⁸), the Court reinforced this principle by  allowing modification of a preliminary partition decree passed before 2005, ensuring that  daughters received their rightful shares before the final decree. This decision emphasized that  procedural stages in partition suits should not deprive daughters of substantive rights  introduced by law.

Section 15(1) of the HSA, governing succession to the property of a female Hindu, has faced  particular scrutiny for prioritizing a woman’s husband’s heirs over her natal family. In Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (2012)¹⁹, the Bombay High Court declared this preference  discriminatory and violative of Article 15(1), pointing out its inconsistency with the  constitutional guarantee of equality. However, the Supreme Court in Omprakash v. Radha  Charan (2009) adopted a literal approach, ruling that even a woman’s self-acquired property  could pass to her in-laws under Section 15(1), despite evidence that her parents had supported  her financially.

Beyond the HSA, Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) ²⁰addressed exclusionary tribal  customary laws that denied women inheritance rights in agricultural land. While  acknowledging that Scheduled Tribes were exempt from HSA’s application, the Court urged  legislative reform and granted limited protections to tribal women, balancing custom with  fundamental rights.

Collectively, these judicial interventions demonstrate a steady, though incomplete, shift  towards gender parity in inheritance. While the courts have often expanded women’s rights  through progressive interpretation, the persistence of statutory provisions like Section 15(1)  and the enduring influence of patriarchal customs reveal that legislative reform remains  essential for achieving full equality in property succession.

Overview and Significance of the 2023 Amendment Proposal

The proposed 2023 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ²¹addresses a persistent gap  in the inheritance rights of certain women, particularly non-remarried daughters-in-law.  Presently, Section 15 provides that when a Hindu woman dies intestate, her property devolves  upon her sons, daughters, and the children of any predeceased sons or daughters. However,  non-remarried daughters-in-law are excluded from this succession framework, leaving them  without legal entitlement to movable or immovable assets of their mothers-in-law. This  exclusion often exacerbates their financial vulnerability, especially when they have no  independent source of income. For example, many widowed daughters-in-law are left to  shoulder debts incurred by their late husbands, yet are denied access to property that could  alleviate their hardship. Similarly, elderly mothers—often neglected by their own children— find themselves without adequate support, sometimes forced into old-age homes despite the existence of family assets. The proposed amendment seeks to restructure Section 15 by granting  non-remarried daughters-in-law inheritance rights equal to those of sons and daughters,  including the children of predeceased sons or daughters. This change aims to ensure both  economic security and social justice, aligning the law with contemporary needs and  constitutional principles of equality.

Gender Bias in Inheritance Laws: Denmark vs. India

1. Gender Equality – Denmark’s Inheritance Act is gender-neutral, granting sons and daughters equal rights and recognising same-sex marriages. In India, the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) historically favoured males. The 2005 amendment made daughters equal coparceners, but  social and procedural barriers still limit women’s access.
2. Spousal and Inheritance Rights – In Denmark, spouses inherit equally under forced heirship. In India, widows inherit as Class I heirs, but no compulsory share exists, and self-acquired property can be willed away, potentially disinheriting women.
3. Recognition and International Context – Denmark recognises same-sex spouses; India does not, reflecting heteronormative bias. These differences conflict with India’s constitutional equality, CEDAW obligations, and Sustainable Development Goal 5 on gender equality.

SUGGESTIONS

1. To address the structural discrimination embedded in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, comprehensive legislative reform is essential. First, the Act must adopt a uniform succession scheme, amending Sections 8 and 15 to ensure identical, gender-neutral  rules for intestate succession of Hindu males and females. Section 15(2) should be  revised to remove source-based succession rules, placing a woman’s natal family on  equal footing with her husband’s heirs, particularly for self-acquired property. Further,  Section 2(2), which excludes Scheduled Tribes, should be amended to extend statutory  protection to tribal women while respecting egalitarian customary practices.
2. Alongside legislative change, administrative and judicial reforms are necessary. Fast track courts should be established for women’s succession disputes to reduce delays, and gender-sensitization training must be made mandatory for judges, lawyers, and revenue officers.
3. Awareness and access to justice should be strengthened through nationwide legal literacy campaigns, focusing on rural and marginalized communities. Free legal aid centres must be expanded, with NGO partnerships to assist women in filing inheritance  claims.
4. Economic and social measures should complement legal reforms by promoting women’s education, financial literacy, and employment, thereby enhancing their capacity to assert property rights.
5. Drawing from global best practices, India can model reforms on country like Denmark, which follow gender-neutral succession laws, clear statutory hierarchies, and strong enforcement mechanisms.
6. Finally, to align with CEDAW obligations, India must repeal or revise Section 15(2), ensure equal rights over all property types, digitize land records to reflect female ownership, and include provisions for widows, childless women, estranged women, and  LGBTQ+ persons. Only by integrating legislative, administrative, and social strategies  can India achieve substantive gender equality in inheritance laws.

CONCLUSION

Hindu women’s inheritance rights in India have improved over time, moving from strict male  control toward greater equality. Traditionally, under the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems,  women could only enjoy property during their lifetime and did not have full ownership. Early  laws like the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,  started giving women legal rights to property. The major change came with the Hindu  Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which made daughters equal coparceners with sons,  meaning they now inherit property from birth. The Supreme Court, in Vineeta Sharma v.  Rakesh Sharma (2020), confirmed that daughters’ rights apply even if the father passed away  before the amendment. Despite these changes, social customs, resistance from families, and  difficulties in enforcing the law still prevent women from fully claiming their inheritance.  Recent proposals, including the 2023 suggested amendment to Section 15, aim to include  women previously left out, such as non-remarried daughters-in-law. However, inequalities  remain. Sections 2(2) and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act still favor a husband’s family over a  woman’s birth family and exclude many tribal women, leaving them to follow local customs  that often deny them inheritance, as seen in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996). Courts have recognized this unfairness, for example in Omprakash v. Radha Charan (2009), but the  law has not been fully corrected. State-level rules and traditional practices, especially in rural  areas, also limit women’s rights. Achieving true equality requires more than laws. Patriarchal  mindsets, economic dependence, and lack of awareness make it hard for women to claim their  property. Solutions include legal education, better support from courts and administration, and  changing social attitudes. Only when the Hindu Succession Act is fully fair and matches  constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 15 can Hindu women gain real control over  property, becoming active participants in family wealth and India’s economic growth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES 

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, art. 15, 1950.
2. Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). 3. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, No. 39 of 2005, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India). 4. Indian Succession Act, No. 39 of 1925, Acts of Parliament, 1925 (India). 5. Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, No. 41 of 1937, Acts of Parliament, 1937 (India).

INTERNATIONAL STATUTES

1. Danish Inheritance Act [Arveloven] No. 108 of 2008 (Den.).

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. 3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217 A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948).

REPORTS AND OTHER REFERENCES

1. Law Comm’n of India, 174th Report on Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under Hindu Law (2000).
2. Law Comm’n of India, 207th Report on Succession and Inheritance Laws (2008). 3. National Commission for Women, Recommendations on Property Rights of Women (2003).

SECONDARY SOURCES

BOOKS 

1. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
2. J.D.M. Derrett, A Critique of Modern Hindu Law (N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd. 1970). 3. D.F. Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law (22nd ed., LexisNexis).
3. Paras Diwan, Family Law: Hindu Law (10th ed., Allahabad Law Agency). 5. G.C.V. Subbarao, Family Law in India (S. Gogia & Co.).
4. Narendra Subramanian, Divided Families and Inequality in Modern India (Oxford Univ. Press 2014).
5. John D. Mayne, Mayne’s Hindu Law and Usage (16th ed., Bharat Law House).

Articles and Research Papers

1. Flavia Agnes, Hindu Women’s Rights to Property: Recent Law Reforms and Judicial Trends, 41 Econ. & Pol. Weekly 4719 (2006).
2. M.P. Singh, Gender Equality and Succession Laws in India, 50 J. Indian L. Inst. 1 (2008).
3. Ratna Kapur, The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric: Resurrecting the Native Subject in International/Post-Colonial Feminist Legal Politics, 15 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 1 (2002).
4. Tahir Mahmood, Uniform Civil Code: Fictions and Facts, 1 J. Indian L. & Soc’y 1 (1995).

ONLINE WEBSITES

1. Legal Service India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com (last visited Aug. 14, 2025). 2. Kanoon Review, https://www.kanoonreview.com (last visited Aug. 14, 2025). 3. Vakilsearch, https://www.vakilsearch.com (last visited Aug. 14, 2025). 4. Newsclick, https://www.newsclick.in (last visited Aug. 14, 2025).
2. Law Umbrella, https://lawumbrella.org (last visited Aug. 14, 2025).

¹ Omprakash & Ors. v. Radhacharan & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 66

² Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, § 2(2) (India)

³IND. CONST. art. 15, cl. 1 (as amended)

⁴ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S.  13 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1981).

⁵ Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, § 15(2) (India).

⁶Jayantilal Mansukhlal & Anr. v. Mehta Chhanalal Ambalal, AIR 1968 Guj 212.

⁷ Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja v. Shri Kulbhushan Malik & Ors., CS (OS) 513/2001, Delhi High Court, Aug. 13, 2008. ⁸ Balasaheb Anandrao Ghatge v. Jaimala Sahaji Raje Angre, AIR 1978 Bom 44.

⁹ Law Commission of India, Report No. 174, Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms Under the Hindu  Law (2000).

¹⁰ Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, § 23 (India).

¹¹ Nirmala & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP (C) No. 6435/2007, Delhi High Court, June 4,  2010.

¹² Roshan Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives v. Pritam Singh & Others, RSA No. 258 of  2012, Cross-Objections No. 417 of 2012, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Dec. 13, 2018

¹³ Archna v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64999 of 2014, Allahabad  High Court, Mar. 27, 2015.

¹⁴ Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951 (U.P.).

¹⁵ Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives, Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 2019,  Supreme Court of India, Mar. 7, 2019.

¹⁶ Butaki Bai & Others v. Sukhbati & Others, Second Appeal No. 825 of 2000, Chhattisgarh High Court, May 2,  2014.

¹⁷ Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1 (India).

¹⁸ Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 788 (India).

¹⁹ Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa, (2012) 4 Bom CR 1, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 853.

²⁰ Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125 (India).

²¹ The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Bill No. 35 of 2023, Lok Sabha, introduced on February 6,  2023.