Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has urged the Union government to review and revisit a crucial provision of the Hindu Succession Act, warning that the 2005 amendment, though progressive in intent, has inadvertently created confusion regarding the inheritance rights of Hindu widows and mothers. The court said that while Parliament sought to strengthen the rights of daughters in ancestral property, the amended law fails to clearly spell out the position of other Class I heirs who were explicitly protected under the original 1956 legislation.

The observations were made by a division bench comprising Justices R Devdas and B Muralidhara Pai in a judgment delivered earlier this month. The bench described the omission as an “inadvertent gap” in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and said it was the duty of the court to bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers so that ambiguity and uncertainty in property disputes could be removed.

Gap in the 2005 amendment

The Hindu Succession Act was originally enacted in 1956 to codify and amend the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. Section 6 of the original Act dealt with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property under the Mitakshara law. Under this provision, when a male coparcener died, a notional partition of the joint family property was assumed to calculate his share, and specific recognition was given to other Class I heirs, including the widow and mother, ensuring that their rights were clearly protected.

In 2005, Parliament amended Section 6 to bring about a significant and much-lauded reform: daughters were given the same rights as sons in coparcenary property by birth. The amendment aimed to remove gender discrimination and place daughters on an equal footing with male heirs in joint family property.

However, the Karnataka High Court noted that in the process of redrafting Section 6 to incorporate daughters as coparceners, the amended provision dropped any express reference to other Class I heirs, such as widows and mothers. While these heirs continue to be listed under Class I in the Schedule to the Act, their specific mention at the stage of notional partition was removed.

“This silence has left room for confusion on a plain reading of the law,” the bench observed, adding that although Parliament never intended to take away or dilute the rights of widows and mothers, the absence of explicit language now risks obscuring their position, especially in contested inheritance cases.

“Sheer inadvertence” in drafting

The bench was candid in its assessment of the drafting lapse. “It is by sheer inadvertence that the other Class I heirs, such as widow, mother, widow of a predeceased son, etc., who find place in Class I of the Schedule and whose rights flowed clearly under the unamended Section 6, have been missed out in the amended provision,” the judges said.

The court emphasised that this omission was not merely academic. In real-world disputes, particularly those involving ancestral property and multiple heirs, the lack of clarity could lead to misinterpretation of the law, inconsistent rulings, and prolonged litigation, with widows and mothers often being placed in a vulnerable position.

“We therefore feel it is the bounden duty of this Court to draw the attention of the lawmakers,” the bench said, suggesting that a fresh drafting exercise or an explanatory amendment expressly referring to Class I heirs may be necessary to remove ambiguity and ensure that the rights of widows and mothers are not diluted in practice.

Observations arose from a family property dispute

The court’s remarks came in the context of a long-running and complex family dispute over ancestral property, which required the judges to closely examine the operation of Section 6 as amended in 2005.

The properties in question originally belonged to one Mudukanagouda Goudra, who died in 2008. Following his death, three siblings approached the courts claiming that Goudra was their father and that their mother was his second wife. They sought a declaration that they were co-owners of the ancestral property and requested the court to restrain Goudra’s first wife and her brother from interfering with the property.

A trial court examined the evidence and concluded that Goudra’s first wife was the only legally wedded spouse. It further held that the three siblings were born from a void marriage and, therefore, could not claim equal rights in the ancestral property. Aggrieved by this ruling, the siblings challenged the decision before the Karnataka High Court.

High Court’s nuanced ruling

The high court partly allowed the appeals, taking a more nuanced view of the law. While it upheld the finding that the first wife was Goudra’s lawful spouse, it also ruled that the three children born from the second relationship were entitled to inherit Goudra’s property as legitimate children under the Hindu Succession Act.

The court noted that judicial precedents and statutory provisions recognise the inheritance rights of children born from void or voidable marriages, even if the marriage itself is not legally valid. Accordingly, the children could not be denied their share in the father’s property.

Since the properties were ancestral in nature, the court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and ordered a notional partition to determine the respective shares. It held that the widow was entitled to half of the property in her own right. The remaining half, representing Goudra’s share, was to be divided equally between the widow and the three children.

Encountering the drafting gap

It was while applying the amended Section 6 in this factual context that the bench encountered the drafting gap it went on to highlight. The judges observed that under the unamended law, the position of the widow at the stage of notional partition was clear and unambiguous. The amended provision, however, no longer explicitly spelled out her entitlement in the same manner.

“At this juncture, we feel it is our duty to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities that the amended Section 6 leaves room for confusion insofar as the rights of a Hindu widow and mother are concerned,” the bench said.

Although the court itself ensured that the widow’s rights were protected in the case before it, the judges cautioned that not every case may receive the same careful interpretation, especially at lower levels of the judiciary.

Direction to inform the Centre

Taking the matter beyond the immediate dispute, the bench directed the registry of the Karnataka High Court to forward a copy of the judgment to the Union Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs for “further steps”. This direction effectively serves as an invitation to the Centre to examine the issue and consider legislative or clarificatory measures.

Legal experts say the court’s observations could have far-reaching implications. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act has been the subject of extensive litigation over the years, including landmark rulings by the Supreme Court clarifying that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of when they were born.

However, the position of widows and mothers at the stage of notional partition has not received the same level of legislative clarity. The Karnataka High Court’s judgment brings this overlooked aspect into sharp focus.

Balancing reform with clarity

The court made it clear that its observations should not be read as criticism of the objective behind the 2005 amendment. On the contrary, the judges acknowledged that the amendment was a progressive step aimed at gender justice. Their concern, they said, was that in the process of advancing daughters’ rights, the law should not unintentionally create uncertainty for other vulnerable heirs.

By calling for a review, the high court has underlined the importance of careful legislative drafting, especially in social reform laws that affect millions of families and often lie at the heart of emotionally charged disputes.

Whether the Centre chooses to act on the court’s suggestion remains to be seen. But the judgment has opened a crucial conversation about ensuring that reforms meant to expand rights do not, through silence or ambiguity, end up weakening existing protections for widows and mothers under Hindu law.