The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged all women, especially Hindu women who may leave behind property after their death, to make a will to ensure that their property is distributed according to their wishes and to avoid future litigation between their parents and in-laws. “we appeal to all women and particularly all Hindu women irrespective of their age who are likely to be in position of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to take immediate steps to make a testament or will bequeathing their properties including their self-acquired properties in accordance with section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. We do so in order to safeguard the interest of not only women in this country in general but female Hindus in particular so as to avoid any further litigation”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan declined to decide a PIL challenging Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on merits, and left the question of validity open. Section 15(1)(b) provides that when a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving behind a son, daughter or husband, her property devolves on the heirs of the husband to the exclusion of her parents. If there are no heirs of the husband, parent of the woman can inherit her estate as per section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
The Court also directed that when a Hindu woman dies without a Will and her parents or their heirs claim her property, the parties must first go through pre-litigation mediation before filing any case in court. Any settlement reached in mediation must be treated as a decree of the court, the Court held. “If a claim is made by the parents or heirs of the parents of a female Hindu dying intestate as stated in section 15(1)(c), (d) and (e) make a claim to the estate of a Hindu female dying intestate and section 15(2) does not apply, then in such a case we direct the parties to go in for mediation in the first instance. We direct that there should be a pre litigation mediation prior to filling of any suit other proceeding in a court of law”, the Court held.
The petition was filed under Article 32 by a lawyer who had been practicing for about five years at the time of filing. The petitioner sought the striking down of Section 15(1)(b) on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 21. Senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that while Section 15(2) set separate rules for property a woman inherited from her parents or her husband, the Act did not consider that a female Hindu may also possess self-acquired property. It was argued that placing the husband's heirs under Section 15(1)(b) above the parents under Section 15(1)(c) is arbitrary. He urged that clause (b) be struck down or that precedent be given to parents of the woman under clause (c).
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the Union of India submitted that such questions must be raised by affected parties and cannot be assailed at the instance of a practicing advocate. He stated that Section 15 was drafted on a scientific basis and that in 1956 Parliament may not have contemplated that a woman could have self-acquired property. He added that Section 30 of the Act, read with the Indian Succession Act, allows a female Hindu to make a will and freely bequeath her property, including self-acquired property. He argued that Section 15 deals only with general rules of succession after death in the absence of a will, and therefore Article 14 would not strictly apply.
The Court noted that the grievance raised was that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate, without children or husband, devolves only on the husband's heirs, even where the parents had educated and supported her and may survive her. The Court held that it did not wish to entertain the petition at the instance of the present petitioner and left the issue of the validity of Section 15(1)(b) open to be considered in appropriate proceedings. The Court noted the possibility that even remote heirs of the husband may succeed to the estate while the parents could also have succeeded on par, but highlighted that the Parliament in its wisdom had placed the husband's heirs first. While declining to rule on the validity of the provision, the Court reserved liberty to concerned parties to raise such questions in appropriate cases.
However, the Court directed that where parents or their heirs make a claim under Section 15(1)(c), (d) or (e), and Section 15(2) does not apply, the parties must first undergo pre-litigation mediation. It ordered Directors of mediation centres or Member Secretaries of legal services authorities at the State, district or taluka level to entertain such applications, and held that any settlement reached would be treated as a decree of the court.
The bench observed that in 1956 Parliament may have assumed that women would not have self-acquired property but noted the progress of women due to Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and other constitutional provisions. “Education, employment, and entrepreneurship of women in this country including Hindu women has led to their acquiring self-acquired property. If such self-acquired properties are to be succeeded only by the heirs of the husband if a female Hindu dies intestate in the absence of having sons, daughters and husband, possibly it may cause heart burn so far as maternal family is concerned. We do not make any observation in this regard also”, the Court stated. The Court urged all women, particularly Hindu women who may fall within Section 15(1), to make a will in order to safeguard their interests and avoid litigation. The Court clarified that affected parties remain free to assail the provision if their dispute is not resolved through mediation, Lok Adalats or court proceedings.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 732/2020 Case Title – Snidha Mehra v. Union of India
