Hindu Female Succession | Hindu Succession Act | Hindu Law - YouTube

In this video, we are going to see who will succeed the properties of a Hindu female dying intestate.

We have already seen, who will succeed to the properties of a Hindu Male dying intestate (who has not made a will).

Similarly, if a female has died intestate, that is,

she had not declared as to who should succeed her properties after her death. Then who would succeed her properties?

Let see about it.

This too, we are going to discuss under Hindu Succession Act.

If this Act has to apply to someone, they should be a Hindu.

Who are all Hindus?

That, I have explained in this video. If you haven't watched it, please do.

Before going into the heirs, we need to know first how woman could have acquired her properties.

By her own hard work.

From her parents

By way of partitioning her parent's properties

By way of maintenance from her husband

Stridhana properties received by her from her parents

By way of gift

Through Will

By any Courts' Order, Decree or Award, she could have acquired properties.

Properties that are acquired by her by these ways, may be movable or immovable,

acquired before or after her marriage,

or before or after the commencement of the Act.

By whatever ways the properties acquired by a woman will be considered her absolute properties.

But none of the properties acquired by her by way of gift, will or decree should be a restricted estate.

If someone owns a property that is restricted estate, then he can not be an absolute owner of that property.

For example, if a girl's parents gave her some properties, along with a condition that she can not alienate those properties.

Which means, she can not sell, mortage, lease or do any sort of transfer of that properties.

At the same time, her parents also said that when the properties get to the hands of her children,

they can alienate the properties as they wish.

Now, if you see, even though she holds the property in her possession, she is not the absolute owner of it.

This property is only a restricted estate with respect to her rights on it.

Because, this property came with a restriction.

Hence, it is called restricted estate.

The absolute right to enjoy the property is vested with her children, hence she is only a limited owner and not absolute owner.

So, if a woman has acquired a property like this, then it will not be her absolute property.

Properties that are not restricted estates will be her absolute estate.

All these are mentioned under sec 14.

Now we saw what are all the absolute properties of a woman,

but when we discussed who are all the heirs of a Hindu Male, we directly went to his heirs.

We didn't discuss, "what will be his absolute properties and what will not be his absolute properties", Right?

Then, why only for females?

Because, during olden times, women did not have much of property rights.

They did not possess property rights like that of men.

Property holders were generally male and not female.

So it is important that we first know, what are all the absolute properties of women, before going into devolution.

That's the only reason, why we have to know what is the absolute property of a woman before seeing her heirs.

Now do you understand, why we saw what are all the absolute properties of a woman, in the first place?

Now, let's see who are all those heirs who succeeds her property.

Firstly, it is her husband and children.

Husband means widower, cause wife if dead.

Lets assume, the woman leaves behind her husband, one son and one daughter.

After her death, the property is split into 3 and each gets one share.

That is, husband gets one share, son gets one and daughter gets one share.

In case, if her husband is predeceased,

the property is shared between the son and the daughter.

In case, she has no children, her husband takes all her properties.

If she has no husband, no children, but grandchildren, then her property goes to her grandchildren.

Incase, the grandchildren are also dead, but there are great grandchildren, the property is acquired by great grandchildren.

This is first line of devolution.

If none of them are alive, then next successor is heirs of husband.

Who are heirs of husband?

We have already seen the heirs of a hindu male right? They are the successors.

That is, the property devolves as if the property belongs to her husband.

Isn't is gender discriminatory? Just because she was married, her property should devolve to her husband's heirs.

Hence, it has been challenged before the SC very recently, so we have wait for the decision of the Court.

If there is none of those heirs or if the woman is unmarried, the property goes to her parents.

If her parents are also not alive, then?

Heirs of her father take the property.

Similar to the succession of a Hindu Male, the property goes to her father's heirs.

If they are also not alive, then her mother's heirs take the property.

Devolution takes place like this, only if the woman had acquired the properties from her husband or father-in-law.

Here too it is gender discriminatory.

The woman would get property only from her husband or father-in-law but never from mother-in-law?

Why don't they have simply mentioned as 'the properties acquired by her from her husband's family members'?

Instead they have very specifically mentioned "husband or father-in-law". This shows property was mostly held by male, not female.

Whatever, you understand the object behind it right?

If she has acquired the property from her husband's family, it will fair only if the property reverted back to her husband's family, right?

What if the property held by that woman came from her parents?

Property will not go to heirs of husband, instead, to her parents.

As a matter of justice, the property acquired by the woman from her parents, should go to her parents after her death.

Hence, in such cases, the property goes back to her parents itself.

Still then, there is a discrimination here.

What is that?

What if the property held by the woman was a self acquired property?

See, if the woman is employed, she acquired the property by her own earnings, then who do you think should succeed that property?

When will it be just, for the husband's family to take the property, or for her parents to take the property?

Even such self acquired property too, first devolves to the heirs of her husband, not her parents.

That is, if there are any heirs of husband, they take the property, her parents get none.

This too is discriminatory, right?

If education is provided to her by her parents, then, it would be just only if the property goes back to her parents, right?

No need to mention at all, how gender discriminatory this act is.

So, the challenge to this provision seems right. Let's see what the court has to say.

All these are mentioned under sec 15.

Sec 15 says who are all the heirs. And the rules involved like how much share each gets are mentioned in sec 16.