Published On: October 11th 2025
Authored By: Shivangi
Aryans College of Law, Patiala University
ABSTRACT
Behind every inheritance denied and every instance of a marital property dispute muffled, there is a narrative composed not of the absence of law, but of its betrayal. For centuries, women’s identifications as family members were inscribed in the margins; they were dependent, seldom owners. Law has promised equality, legislative amendments speak of empowerment of women, and judgments uphold constitutional values, but there remains a silent battlefield between the promise of rights and their application, where women negotiate respect by tradition, and justice for prejudice. This article traverses the battlefield, mapping out how doctrines that tether women into dependency are reinterpreted into instruments of agency. It discusses the tensions of law against custom, the determination of women who claimed ownership over their names, and that the struggle for making legal rights a lived experience is yet to be finalised.
INTRODUCTION
The debate over women’s rights in India cannot be considered apart from the realities of disputes involving marriage and property. The schools of Hindu law (Mitakhara and Dayabhaga) confirmed a regime of women’s subordination concerning property rights because women were barred from being coparceners and were limited to only life interests, making them dependents from a legal perspective. The Constitution of India attempted to overcome this legislation through the parameters of equality before the law (Article 14), non-discrimination on the grounds of sex (Article 15), while granting the State the sanction to legislate protective measures for women. Legislative measures such as the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the interpretation of stridhan and inheritance rights by courts are part of an emergent jurisprudence of property rights that operates to bring personal laws in line with constitutional provisions.
This paper critically assesses the progress from restricting customary duties to the duties proper to the Constitution, including the legal acknowledgement of women’s claims to matrimonial and property rights. It asks, have women’s matrimonial and property rights changed from mere symbolic acknowledgement to real protections and enforceable guarantees of dignity and autonomy? This paper places women’s legislative rights in the context of the broader constitutional framework for gender justice and asserts that equality must be located not in legislative rights on paper, but in the reach and enforceability of rights in the society in which those rights exist.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION: SCHOOLS OF HINDU LAW
To understand the origins of women’s property rights in India, it is necessary to analyse the two major branches of Hindu Law
- Mitakshara school
- Dayabhaga school.
Mitakshara School
The Mitakshara school, which is applied across most of India, limited women’s property rights. Women were not recognised as coparceners- joint Heirs in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Thus, a widow could not claim any share of her deceased husband’s share, nor could she partition against his male relatives. Women’s rights were acknowledged through life interest or maintenance, but not ownership and oppression rights.
Dayabhaga School
This fairly lenient system was limited to Bengal and Assam. A widow could inherit her deceased husband’s share and partition against the brothers of her deceased husband. However, the widow’s daughters had no lawful rights in the absence of sons; the next male heir inherited.
The male-oriented nature of the provisions in both schools established a situation that would continue to determine the outcome of property law, which restricted the ownership and control of women.[1]
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR WOMEN
Fundamental Rights and the Empowerment of Women:
The basis of women’s rights in India was laid by the Fundamental Rights contained in the Constitution. These procedures provide the basis for gender equality and protection of women from discrimination and injustice.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the “right to equality” to all citizens, stating that the “State” shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in the territory of India.
This provision is critical to the extent that it establishes that women have equal rights and entitlements as men and sets out the foundation for gender equality not just in the field of equality in the political, economic and social.
Article 15(1) and Article 15(3) Prohibition of Discrimination and Special Provisions
Article 15(1) prohibits the state from discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) allows the state to make special provisions for women and children.
Constitutional Protections for Women’s Participation in Local Governance:
Understanding the critical role women have in local governance and the democratic process, the Constitution provides for the reservation of a seat to women in Panchayats and Municipalities.
Articles 243-D(3), 243-D(4), 243-T(3) and 243-T(4): Reservation in Local Bodies
These provisions reserve one-third (1/3) of the total number of seats in every Panchayat and Municipality for women as elected by direct election. It is also provided that one-third (1/3) of the total number of chairpersons in Municipalities and Panchayats at every level must also be reserved.
These reservation provisions give women representation in local governance, enable women to participate in decision-making, and give women the ability to have a say in making decisions in their communities.[2]
PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER OTHER RELIGIOUS LAWS:
Christian Law: Indian Succession Act, 1925
- Treats sons and daughters as co-heirs in intestate succession.
- A widow’s share depends on whether there are lineal descendants or kindred.
- The Act mandates equal rights in inheritance for sons and daughters without discrimination.
Muslim Law: Sunni (Hanafi) School
- Shares in inheritance are fixed as per the Quran.
- A widow’s share is one-fourth if no children, and one-eighth if there are children.
- Daughters get half of the shares given to sons.
- Testamentary gifts are only valid for a third of the estate.
Parsi Law: Indian Succession Act, 1925
- Gives equal rights to daughters and widows to inherit.
- The right to succession of a widow or widower comes to an end upon their remarriage.
The personal laws may differ; however, there is a growing trend of acceptance for women’s rights to property and inheritance.
MATRIMONIAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN
- Right to matrimonial home
Even upon the death of the husband, the wife has the legal right of a wife over the husband to live in the matrimonial home. The residence could be his parents’ residence or a rented flat, and she has the right to live there too. When a divorce occurs, the wife can live in the matrimonial home until the matrimonial home is sold, and she has found a new dwelling place, or has returned to her parents’ home.
The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) 1955 has no provisions for a married lady to come back to her parents’ home; she has the legal right of a wife over the husband to live, and must do so when she wants. One of the important legal rights of a wife over the husband, without question, is her right to the matrimonial home.
- Right to property
The 2005 Hindu Succession Act (HSA) 1956 amendment states that a daughter has equal inheritance rights to her father’s property, whether she is married or unmarried. A woman also has an equal legal right to her husband as other heirs for purposes of inheriting his property.
She is only able to inherit if her husband has made a will or if her husband didn’t make his will to exclude her. Here’s the corrected version of your sentence:
If a husband marries a second wife while the first marriage is still subsisting, the first wife is already entitled to the property.
- Right to report domestic violence
The Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, entitles a woman to report domestic violence. This law stipulates that domestic violence is considered illegal. It applies to all forms of abuse: physical, mental, sexual, financial, and other forms as warranted. A woman is entitled to protection, assistance, custody, and compensation and retains the right to remain in the same place of residence. The legal right of the wife to her husband includes the right to report domestic violence.
- Right to abortion
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, gives a woman the absolute right whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy without the husband’s consent.
The time limit for a child to be aborted has been raised to 24 weeks. The right to an abortion is one of a wife’s legal rights over her husband.
- Right to divorce
Women under the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act have the right to legally divorce their husbands without having to obtain the consent of their husbands. Adultery, cruelty, desertion, being evicted from the marital home, mental illness, etc., can be used to obtain a divorce.
The act also provides for divorce by mutual consent. The wife has a lot of additional grounds under this act as a right of a wife over the husband.[3]
INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF A WIDOW UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION LAW
A) SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY
In Hindu Law, a widow’s position is unique, particularly regarding her rights over her deceased husband’s property. With regard to the husband’s self-acquired property, property acquired or purchased, for example, by the husband, without having come from the family line of inheritance, the widow has a compelling position. She practically steps into the shoes of her husband as a Class I heir under the prevailing law of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So essentially, on her husband’s death, the widow gets a fraction of his self-acquired property alongside the surviving sons, daughters and mother. The fraction is significant because it is computed by measuring the property against the number of Class I heirs raised under the law. This entitlement is an important manifestation of the law’s intent to protect her financial independence upon the death of her husband. Very importantly, this right cannot be taken away from the widow as an heir of her husband, except if he did validly exclude her by will. Even then, a will can be challenged on its face if it appears to be inequitable. It is these understandings of the law that permit widows to stand firm on their claim and to assert their right to their husband’s estate.
B) ANCESTRAL PROPERTY
The rights a Hindu widow has to her deceased husband’s ancestral property are straightforward and defined. She is entitled to the same share as her children in her husband’s share of the family property, and her husband had parents; then she, the children, and her grandparents are together entitled to equal shares in her husband’s ancestral property. Importantly, it must be recognised that these rights are legislated and protected under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, giving the widow certainty and claims to the familial property, notwithstanding the passing of her husband.
Moreover, she can demand partition of the property if she wants – this is significant because it recognises her clout in the traditional context where she has also begun to establish her rightful economic independence and autonomy in the family. Again, this property belongs to her, and she is free to hold, sell, or transfer her share if she wishes; this is a powerful step toward granting her agency.
The long and the short of it is that when it comes to re-marrying, any rights she may have in her deceased husband’s property do not magically evaporate. As long as certain rights still exist, she would not be left exposed or unprotected. Acknowledging a Hindu widow’s rights to ancestral property must be framed more as part of the broader transformation for gender equality and women’s empowerment.[4]
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
Facts: The issue in the case was whether daughters born before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had a right to claim coparcenary interest in the joint family property. Several High Courts have held that daughters should be able to claim rights only if their father was alive at the time of the 2005 Amendment.
Issue: Whether it is necessary for both father and daughter to be alive at the time the 2005 amendment commenced for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that daughters are equal coparceners as sons. The existence of their father in 2005 is irrelevant. The ruling made the amendment retrospective so as to ensure equality of daughters’ rights in Hindu joint family property.[5]
STRIDHAN VS. DOWRY: LEGAL PROTECTION OR SOCIAL CONFUSION?
There is often a misconception that Stridhan and Dowry are the same, even though they are different. Dowry is property/jewellery/ other things given by the bride’s family to the groom or groom’s family before, during or after the marriage, whilst Stridhan is given to the woman by her parents/in-laws freely and independently before, during or after the marriage.
Dowry is a demand made by/ groom’s family, which could be seen as a precondition of the solemnisation of marriage. The demand made by the groom has to be compulsorily fulfilled by the bride’s family, even if they do not have the means, etc. There is a difference between the two in that, on dissolution of marriage, the woman can claim the Stridhan as owner (and only owner) of the gifts, jewellery, property, etc.[6]
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985)
Facts: At the time of marriage, Pratibha Rani (the wife) had brought gold ornaments, clothing, and other fashionable items (stridhan) to her matrimonial home. Her husband Suraj Kumar and the family appropriated her stridhan and have refused to return it after repeated attempts by the wife. She filed a criminal complaint against them for criminal breach of trust in Section 406 of the IPC. The lower courts rejected her complaint, stating that it was a matrimonial matter only and certainly did not amount to a criminal offence.
Issue: Whether a husband or his relatives be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust under Section 405/406 IPC for reasons of their refusal to return the wife’s stridhan?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that:
Stridhan is an absolute property of a woman. This means that neither the husband nor his relatives have any right to keep stridhan. There is a criminal breach of trust in violating a woman’s stridhan if they refuse to pay it back to her under Section 406 IPC.
“A married woman has full proprietary rights over her stridhan and her dispositional rights and freedom is absolute”.[7]
CONCLUSION
Women’s marriage and property rights in India are an extension of the larger struggle against ingrained patriarchy and obligatory constitutional morality. Notwithstanding numerous legislative interventions and the progressive judicial directions for a minority of women in India, it has been and continues to be a challenging journey. The law needs to turn into an actionable tool to support women’s autonomy, inheritance and dignity in the household and community, instead of being a mere rhetorical symbol. Justice expects the community’s rights to be claimed, not merely requested. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer profoundly observed, “A socially sensitised judge is a better statutory armour against gender outrage than long clauses of complex sections’’
REFERENCES
[1] Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Property Rights of Women in India’ (LawBhoomi, 2 June 2025) https://lawbhoomi.com/property-rights-of-women-in-india/ accessed 18 August 2025.
[2] “Women and the Indian Constitution” (Vikaspedia, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India) https://socialwelfare.vikaspedia.in/viewcontent/social-welfare/women-and-child-development/women-development-1/legal-awareness-for-women/women-and-the-indian-constitution?lgn=en accessed 18 August 2025.
[3] ‘What are the Legal Rights of a Wife Over the Husband?’ (Google Docs) https://share.google/oPMOivq0SPaVvTRXA accessed 18 August 2025.
[4] ‘The Rights of a Hindu Widow in Husband Property’ https://share.google/E7uTNkiSb3efx4Zra accessed 18 August 2025.
[5] Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 (SC).
[6] ‘Stridhan Laws in India’ (Google Docs) https://share.google/6EbxgKS3O6SU0OQKy accessed 18 August 2025.
[7] Pratibha Rani v Suraj Kumar & Anr (Supreme Court of India, 12 March 1985) (1985) 2 SCC 370; AIR 1985 628; SCR (3) 191.
