Introduction concerning Hindu Law
This world contains a population of eight billion, out of that one.38 billion
folks sleep in Asian nation presently. India is a nations where different
religion like Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and Parsi live along which shows
secularism. In India there are two types of laws are mentioned:
- General law
- Personal law
General law includes the IPC, Constitutional law, Indian Contract Act and plents
of additional, and therefore the Personal law includes Hindu law, Muslim law and
plenty of additional that we will discuss the Hindu Law during this article.
Origin of Hindu Law
In Dharmasastra there's no word like Hindu
; it's a distant origin. The
word Hindu came into existence through Greeks. This nation came to be refered to as
and its people as it's folks as Hindu as within
the history, the word Hindu not solely specifies a faith, however it
conjointly specifies a nation primarily. The Hindu law has been adjusted through
centuries and been cojointly living since last 5000 years and has cojointly
continued to control the social and ethical figure of Hindu life by following
the various part of Hindu cultural life.
Concept of Dharma
We know that the word Dharma is said to Hindu law. Let Maine ebalorate to you,
the word Dharma
per Hindu Mythology suggest that duty
. Watching the
contexts and therefore the non-secular references Dharma has completely
different meanings rather like, the Buddhists believe that the word Dharma
suggest that solely a universal law that is extremely a lot of essential and
therefore the Jains and therefore the Sikhs believe that it's solely a
spiritual path for the success of the reality.
According to the Hindu Jurisprudence, Dharma suggest that duties in many ways,
rather like the social science duties, legal duties or religious duties. Through
this context, we are able to say that Dharma will be remarked because the
thought of justice.
Who are Hindus?
Hindus are people who are Hindu in any form such as Jain, Sikh and are born to
The Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Shastri vs Muldas
defined the term Hindu
. The case is related to the Swami Narayan temple in
Ahmedabad. There are a group of people called the Satsangi who were heading the
temple and they restricted non-Satsangi, Harijans to enter the temple. They
stated that Satsangi is a different religion and they are not hurdled by Hindu
Law. The Supreme Court of India held that the Satsangi, Arya Samajis and
Radhaswami, all these are included to the Hindu religion because they are
derived from Hindu philosophy.
Rights of Daughter on property according to Hindu law:Now Daughter has equal rights of property under Hindu law:
A three-judge bench Justice S.Abdul Nageer & Justice M.R Shah headed by Justice
Arun Mishra said:
Daughters must be given equal rights as sons. Daughter
remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a
coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not.
Justice Mishra said daughters have to be given equal share of coparcenary rights
in share of property like the son. The bench also held that rights under the
amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on
September 9, 2005, irrespective of when such daughters are born.
The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, confer status of coparcener (equal shareholders while inheriting
properties) on the daughter born before or after the amendment, in the same
manner as sons, with same rights and liabilities. Since the right in coparcenary
is by birth, it is not necessary that the father of the coparcener should be
living as on September 9, 2005 (the date when the law came into force), the
The top court, however, said that a registered settlement or partition suit
decreed prior to December 20, 2004 will not be reopened, in a move to stop
reopening of earlier settlements.
The supreme court had earlier given two conflicting judgements in two cases Prakash V. Phulavati
Danamma Suman Surpur vs. Amar
In Prakash V. Phulavati
(2015), a bench comprising Justices Anil R. Dave and
A.K. Goel had said the rights under the amendment are applicable to living
daughters of living coparceners as on September 9, 2005, regardless of when such
daughters are born'.
In the second case, of Danamma Suman Surpur vs. Amar
(2018), the bench
comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had said that the share of
the father who died in 2001 would also devolve upon his two daughters who would
be entitled to a share in the property'.
Jash Raj Gupta
- Amity University