NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, Delhi High Court has said that a woman can be the “karta” (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The ruling upheld a landmark verdict by a single judge in 2016 that had extended the meaning of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which brings women on par with men on matters of inheritance.
The latest verdict by a bench of justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, to point out that “real change happens one step at a time.”
The high court, in a recent verdict, underlined that “neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu law in any way limits the right of a woman to be a karta. Also, societal perceptions cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by legislature.”
Citing a 2005 amendment in the Hindu Succession Act that gave equal rights to women in property, the court pointed out: “To say that a woman can be a coparcener but not a karta, would be giving an interpretation which would not only be anomalous but also against the stated object of introduction of amendment.”
It declared a woman Sujata, the granddaughter of the patriarch of the family, as karta, after taking note that all his sons had passed away. The dispute arose among the grandsons who opposed Sujata being declared as karta. The court noted that Sujata’s candidature was opposed on “myriad hypotheses justifying why it would be incorrect for a woman to become a karta from the societal standpoint.”
Brushing aside the objections by one of the grandsons, the court underlined that “any culture or practice that is ingrained in the society is bound to face some apprehension and resistance by the society when systemic changes are made to it. But with passage of time it becomes a tool of social change”. “Test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard statutory rights that are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection,” it stated.The court added that the claim that the husband of a female karta would have an indirect control over the activities of the HUF of her father’s family is “only a parochial mindset.”The bench also observed that men and women historically were born equal but over a period of time “with the advancement of civilisation and hierarchical division of society, women have been pigeonholed according to gender roles which progressed into an act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society.”
It lamented that the once egalitarian society “became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of sati, child marriage, sexual harassment, domestic violence, dowry harassment and such like disparages” which is why laws had to be brought to “overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind.”