Review of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005: Karnataka High Court Flags Drafting Gap Affecting Rights of Widows and Mothers
Background of the Case
The Karnataka High Court has urged the Union Government to review the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as modified by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court observed that while the amendment rightly strengthened the inheritance rights of daughters in coparcenary property, it has inadvertently created ambiguity regarding the inheritance position of widows and mothers, who were previously explicitly protected under the unamended provision.
The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai.
Issue Highlighted by the High Court
The Court noted that:
The unamended Section 6 expressly recognised widows and mothers at the stage of a notional partition.
Their entitlement to a share in ancestral property was clearly protected.
However, the amended Section 6 (post-2005) gives equal coparcenary rights to daughters, but does not explicitly refer to:
• widows
• mothers
• widows of pre-deceased sons
• other Class I heirs under the Schedule
This silence has created an interpretive gap in succession disputes involving ancestral property.
The Court clarified that the omission appears to be unintentional, but risks misapplication in litigation.
Key Observation of the Karnataka High Court
The Bench observed:
“It is by sheer inadvertence that other Class I heirs such as widow, mother, widow of a predeceased son etc., whose rights were clearly protected under the unamended Section 6, have been missed out in the amended provision.”
The Court added that the rights of widows and mothers continue to exist under the Act, but ambiguity arises because Section 6 no longer expressly mentions them at the stage of notional partition.
Therefore, the Bench considered it necessary to alert the legislature to the interpretational confusion.
Facts of the Case Leading to the Observation
The dispute concerned ancestral properties belonging to Mudukanagouda Goudra, who died in 2008.
Key facts:
Three children claimed to be born from his alleged second wife.
They sought recognition as co-owners of ancestral property.
The first wife disputed their legitimacy and inheritance rights.
Civil Court Findings
The trial court held the first wife to be the legally wedded spouse.
It also ruled that children from the second relationship could not claim coparcenary rights.
High Court Findings
The Karnataka High Court held that:
The first wife was the lawful spouse.
However, the three children were entitled to inherit as legitimate children under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Since the property was ancestral, Section 6 applied.
A notional partition was ordered.
The Court allocated:
50% to the widow (in her own right)
Remaining 50% (Goudra’s share) to be divided between:
widow, and
three children
It was during this process that the Court encountered ambiguity in amended Section 6 relating to the widow and mother’s express legal recognition in notional partition.
Statutory Provisions Involved
Relevant provisions:
Section 6 — Devolution of Interest in Coparcenary Property
Pre-2005: Recognised widow and mother in notional partition.
Post-2005: Grants equal coparcenary rights to daughters, but does not expressly refer to widows/mothers.
Class I Heirs under the Schedule
Includes:widow
mother
sons and daughters
widow of pre-deceased son
Section 8 — General Rules of Succession
Section 16 — Order of Succession
The Court held that even though widows and mothers retain statutory recognition under Class I heirs, the absence of express mention in the amended Section 6 creates judicial uncertainty.
Constitutional Context
Article 14 — Equality Before Law
Ensures gender-neutral inheritance protection.
Article 15 — Prohibition of Discrimination
Article 15(3) — Protective Measures for Women
Article 21 — Right to Dignity and Fair Legal Protection
The Court emphasised that widows and mothers form a vulnerable class in succession disputes and must not be placed at a disadvantage due to drafting ambiguity.
Judicial Precedents Considered (Contextual)
While the present judgment primarily concerns legislative drafting, the issue relates to broader jurisprudence shaped by:
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1
Affirmed daughters as coparceners by birth under amended Section 6.
Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36
Earlier restrictive interpretation (later clarified in Vineeta Sharma).
Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343
Daughter entitled to share even if father died before 2005.
The Karnataka High Court stressed that while daughters’ rights were rightly strengthened, other Class I heirs must not be overshadowed in interpretation.
Direction Issued by Karnataka High Court
The Court directed:
The Registry to forward the judgment to the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs.
Requested legislative reconsideration of amended Section 6.
Suggested express clarification to include:
widow
mother
widows of pre-deceased sons
other Class I heirs
at the stage of notional partition.
The objective is to remove ambiguity and prevent hardship in property disputes.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court has highlighted a critical interpretative gap arising from the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. While the amendment advanced gender equality by granting daughters equal coparcenary rights, it inadvertently introduced ambiguity regarding the protected inheritance status of widows and mothers.
By calling upon Parliament to revisit Section 6 and explicitly refer to Class I heirs in notional partition, the Court has reinforced:
legislative clarity,
protection of widows and mothers,
certainty in succession disputes, and
equitable distribution of ancestral property.
The ruling strengthens the broader principle that succession law must remain inclusive, unambiguous, and socially protective.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment