Rights of Women in Matrimonial and Property Disputes

Introduction

Women make up half of the world’s population and carry out multiskilled tasks in the married home, but they are not given adequate financial support because their contributions to the development of the family are not regarded as productive work and they are not granted equal rights to economic co-ownership.  The property that partners bring into the marriage is still treated as their individual property under India’s matrimonial property regime.  According to what B. Sivaramayya called the “separation of property” paradigm, the valuation of the matrimonial property may occur at the time of the husband’s death or the dissolution of the marriage.  There isn’t any corpus of “matrimonial property” under such a system that either spouse can claim. The idea of an economic relationship between the couples that would develop after marriage is nonexistent. One Therefore, the only property that many women exercise ownership over at the time of marriage dissolution is the initial corpus of wealth they had at the time of marriage, plus any additions to their property that they have made on their own, through gifts, or through inheritance. Indian laws and policies contribute to disproportionate asset holding in married households due to the lack of recognition of domestic work as productive work, women’s nature and nurture responsibilities, and limited low-paying positions. Addressing these issues involves recognizing domestic work as productive work, encouraging women to work in managerial roles, and recognizing marriage as an equal economic partnership. While legislative action and court rulings have improved women’s proprietary status, socio-religious influence and exclusion from proprietary status under male-dominated legal systems continue to hinder their social standing.

Concept of Matrimonial Property

The Hindu marriage law in India has been criticized for not recognizing the joint family home as a matrimonial home, as women now contribute equally to its construction. The current legal system does not address these issues, and it is hoped that the current English legal system will address these concerns. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) attempted to define “matrimonial property” and govern property acquired at or around the time of a spouse’s marriage. However, the current section 27 of the HMA does not aim to establish “matrimonial property” in the matrimonial home, but rather to give equal financial support to the parties on divorce. The term “matrimonial property” refers to assets acquired at or around the time of marriage, but it does not consider the wife’s role in running the home and indirectly supporting the purchase of numerous other properties. The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly introduced the “Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage) Bill, 2012,” which provides women an equal portion of the “matrimonial property” at the time of marriage dissolution. The Maharashtra government has taken a positive step, but it is essential to wait for this bill to pass.

Judicial Approach on Matrimonial Property Law

The terms “may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife” and “at or about the time of marriage” used in section 27 of the HMA have given rise to conflicting interpretations by the courts when deciding cases involving justice.  When handling cases involving section 27 of the HMA, the courts have given these sentences varying interpretations.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Surinder Kaur v. Madan Gapal Singh in light of section 27 of the Act as follows:  

1. The request to dispose of property must be submitted while the court is still considering the matrimonial proceedings and before the verdict is rendered;
2. The court is under no obligation to accept such an application. It is at its discretion; 
3. The court’s decree issued under the relevant section must be fair and appropriate, paying consideration to the parties’ share adjustment; 
4.  The term “property presented at or about the time of marriage” refers to property given to the spouses at the time of marriage as well as at any point prior to or following the marriage. The property must have been provided to the spouses in connection with the marriage and shortly before the marriage, which is the most important requirement in this case. Here, the amount of time is crucial;
5. The property in question can be given to any of the two couples or to both of them jointly; and 
6. The property must belong to one of the two spouses or to both of them jointly when the case is filed before a court with the necessary authority. 

The court additionally said that “the nature of the property, intention of the donor, or by the agreement of the spouses” is given priority to determine whether section 27 regulates the property, regardless of the property’s origin. For example, even though a piece of property is owned by one spouse exclusively, it belongs to both of them jointly if it is intended for their joint use. The court further noted that property that was received by the couples jointly is not the same as property that belongs to the spouses jointly.  The parties to the divorce petition in Sunita Shankar Salvi v. Shankar Laxman resided in an apartment that was registered in their joint names.  The family court ruled that the husband and wife should split the apartment equally.  The High Court of Bombay, which heard the appeal, maintained the family court’s decision and noted that the wife had a 50% right, interest, and tide in the aforementioned apartment joint venture that they owned.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that in addition to jointly owned properties, the court can issue a decree about either the husband’s or wife’s property.  This authority is not limited to properties that are jointly held.  The word “may” implies that one spouse’s sole property is not excluded.  In Shukla v. Brij Bhushan, however, the Delhi High Court ruled that the court lacked the authority to issue a decree regarding property that was solely possessed by one spouse under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). According to the Karnataka High Court, “at” refers to the “actual time of marriage,” while “about” means “near or roundabout” the time of marriage rather than after it.  The Supreme Court ruled that property under this clause would include both pre- and post-marriage property, rather than just property provided to a spouse at the time of marriage. Ambiguity has resulted from the courts’ inconsistent interpretations of the terms.  Since all of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, apply to matrimonial proceedings under the Act, the motion for recovery in circumstances where a wife sought the return of gold and silver ornaments was granted.

Women and Inheritance Rights

In India, the institution of marriage is linked to property rights, particularly inheritance rights, and marriages between individuals of different faiths, religions, and spiritual characteristics are subject to distinct regulations.  The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 governs the Hindu law of intestate succession. The Indian Succession Act of 1925 establishes the procedural law of “will,” whereas Section 30 of the Act provides the substantive law of testamentary succession. While Christian and Parsi intestate and testamentary successions are handled by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Muslim intestate succession is governed by Quaranic law and testamentary succession is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

As a result, inheritance and succession laws are well-established, granting women property rights in marriage homes, but these rights are contingent upon several events.  These rights are suspended until they are implemented; otherwise, they are put into effect.  But in a matrimonial household, when a wife obtains property rights simply by virtue of being married to a male family member, there is no such thing. When a married woman gives birth to a male or female child, the child becomes a coparcener under Mitakshara Hindu law and is entitled to an interest in the father’s coparcenary property from birth; however, the woman who gave birth does not acquire any property rights as a result of their marriage or as the mother of a coparcener.  However, she receives inheritance rights from her deceased husband after becoming a widow, or if her husband died before his father, she inherits inheritance rights from her father-in-law.

Property Rights of Muslim Women

A daughter who shares the Quran may be excluded by conventions and statutes under Muslim law, which applies to both Sunni and Shia. These traditions, which treat a daughter as nonexistent at the moment of opening the intestate succession, are legitimate even though they go against the teachings of the Quran.  In certain Jammu and Kashmiri groups, a daughter can only succeed if all of the deceased’s male heirs are absent, whereas in other states, she can only inherit if she is a Khananashin. Additionally, according to the Watan Act of 1886 (Bombay), a daughter has no right to inherit the Watan land.  The daughter and her heirs are also not included in the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, which applies the primogeniture rules for the distribution of the taluqdari properties. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the Hanafi law principle of Muslim inheritance in Sheikh Madar v. Kursheeda Begum, which states that if property remains after being divided among the sharers, who make up the first group of property inheritors, the residuary may receive a share upon partition.

The residuary would undoubtedly be entitled to the remaining portion if any remained after giving the daughter her share.  The widow, who was the deceased’s wife, had no right to reject the residuary’s portion because the daughter and the residuaries were both requesting it at the same time.  Additionally, it was mentioned that the residuaries would not be entitled to a share if the share to be divided was equal to unity; however, if the share to be divided was less than unity, the sharers would inherit the property first, and the residuaries would then share the remaining property. The court held in Kulusumhi v. AnntBegum that a widow’s remarriage cannot result in the divestiture of property she inherited following her husband’s death.  According to Hanafi law, Aziza Begum and her heirs were entitled to their one-eighth share.  The widow’s remarriage would not impact the property’s status, the court decided.  The portion that becomes an heir’s at the time of their passing is known as the vested inheritance. Similar concepts pertaining to both Hanafi and Shia law of inheritance were upheld in Taufeeq Hassan v. Dr. Khurshid Ara Begum  and Syed Fateyah Ali Meerņa v. Union of India, where daughters, married or unmarried, were taken into account.

Property Rights of Christian Women

The Indian Succession Act of 1925 establishes Christian women’s property rights.  The case of Mary Roy v. State of Kerala is the seminal case pertaining to Christian women’s property rights. It established that the daughter had the same right to the father’s property as the son.  It should be mentioned that Christian daughters are not eligible to inherit when they execute release deeds at the time of marriage.  The reason for this is that a Christian daughter’s rights over family property are nonexistent and only become apparent when her parents pass away without leaving a will. As a result, the only release deed that would be enforceable is one that was signed after the date of intestacy.  Unless an adoption tradition can be demonstrated, an adopted kid cannot assert the right to succeed.  Adopted daughters are comparable to biological daughters and are entitled to the same share as their sons if this is demonstrated.  Sections 33 and 33-A of the Indian Succession Act of 1925 apply to Christian widows.  If the widow and lineal descendants are the deceased’s heirs, the widow gets one-third of the estate, with the lineal descendants receiving the remaining two-thirds. If the intestate leaves behind people who are related to him but no lineal descendants, the widow will inherit the majority of his property, with the remaining portion going to those relatives.  The widow will be the rightful owner of the entire inheritance if the intestate leaves no family members.  A legitimate agreement made prior to a widow’s marriage may prevent her from inheriting anything.

Property Rights of Parsi Women

The Parsi Interstate Succession Act, 1925, which was later integrated into chapter-Ill, part-V (sections 50–56) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, established the succession laws that control the property rights of Parsi women.  Parsi law grants women the right to inherit property through interstate succession. But the fundamental requirement for obtaining property According to Parsi law, an individual must belong to the Parsi community. Non-Parsi women’s children of Parsi dads are accepted into the Zoroastrian

Religion and are subject to the laws of Parsi succession.  Children of Parsi women who marry non-Parsi men, however, are not regarded as Parsis and are not entitled to any rights under Parsi law. Parsi law allows men to give away their property without restrictions, and women have no right to object. Women can receive property through interstate succession, with a daughter receiving half the share of a son in the father’s property. If a woman dies interstate, her property is divided equally among her husband and children. Parsi adoption is not recognized for inheritance and succession purposes. A widow has equal property rights to a son and twice the share of a daughter. If there is any widow of lineal descendants, the widow and the widow of the lineal descendant each must be given 1/3rd of the property in such cases the remaining property shall be distributed among the remaining relatives of the deceased.

Property Rights of Hindu Women

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 establishes two completely unique intestate succession plans based on sexes that are not related to one another. In the case of female intestates, there are further differences related to the source of the property that is being inherited.  As a result, when a woman dies without producing children, the property she receives from her parents does not pass to her own heirs but goes to her father’s heirs.  Likewise, if she inherits property from her father-in-law or husband, it passes to her upon her passing. She inherited the property from her father or from her husband’s heirs. The partition of succession plans for female intestates is antiquated and illogical.  The heirs are identified as her parents’ and her husband’s heirs rather than as her brother, sister, brother-in-law, etc.  It is believed that she lacks a sense of self.  The Mitakshara legislation, with its ideas of stridhana and female inheritance in dual capacities, had an impact on the legislature while it was drafting this plan.  The legislature’s desperation to treat her as merely a temporary occupant is demonstrated by the return of the once-inherited property to her father’s or her husband’s heirs.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and Hindu daughters

Under shastric Hindu law, male heirs were given an extra portion of coparcenary property. Since 2005, the definition of a coparcenary has evolved to include a coparcener’s daughter, allowing female heirs to request a division of dwelling house property. Hindu women’s property is inherited by their father, mother’s heirs, and husband or father-in-law if they pass away intestate without children. Legislative attempts to bring about gender parity have caused confusion by maintaining the Hindu joint family arrangement and designating daughters as coparceners. A daughter born into the family is a coparcener and part of her father’s joint family, while after marriage; she joins her husband’s joint family. The amendment has established dual membership jurisprudence, causing confusion and confusion. Hindu law allows women to inherit in two ways: as a daughter and as a daughter-in-law.

Conclusion

Currently, Hindus lack a law addressing matrimonial property’ among married couples, resulting in an equal share at the time of dissolution. Despite being considered a class-I heir to her deceased husband, a legally wedded Hindu wife has no property rights during marriage. The Hindu Succession Act, 2005, provides daughters with coparcenary rights by birth, but not by marriage. Implementing matrimonial property’ and ensuring equitable distribution among married spouses could help achieve women’s empowerment. To eliminate the ambiguity that now permeates the Indian legal system, the term “matrimonial property” needs to be defined in precise and unambiguous terms.  Property received, purchased, inherited, or acquired in any other way during a marriage must be included in the current provision, which ambiguously refers to “matrimonial property” under section 27 of the HMA, regardless of whether either spouse has joint title and co-ownership to the same. ‘Community ownership of the property’ should be used in place of the separation of assets idea in matrimonial households in order to alleviate the financial difficulties that women face after marriage.  In order to ensure their financial, social, and legal security, women should have an equal part of marriage property.  The Marriage Laws Amendment Bill and the Maharashtra Bill are moves in the direction of developing a new body of law regarding matrimonial property in India. On a larger scale, creating an appropriate law and policy on “matrimonial property” in India would obviously necessitate a careful analysis of the goals and purposes of marriage, as well as recognition of the role that women play in creating, raising, and caring for the family members and the socioeconomic and legal protections currently provided to women in the matrimonial home.

References 

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s.24. Although this section has been deleted by the amending act of 2005, yet the effect remains the same
2. Ss. 8-13 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provide provisions for male intestate succession, whereas ss. 15-16provide provisions for female intestate succession.
3. Iqbal Ali Khan (rev.), D. F. Mulla, Principles of Mabomedan Law 63 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2013).
4. Ghulam Hassan v. Mst. Saja, AIR 1984 J&K 26, Mohammad Zia-Ullah v. Kafiq
5. Mohammad, AIR 1939 Oudh 213; Abdul Latif Khan v. Mt. Abadi Begum, AIR 1934 PC 188.
6. Government of India, 14th Issue Report on Women and Men in India 2012 (National Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) xxiii, available at http://mospl.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/women_men_2012__31octl2.pdf