ravi@crystal.UUCP (C. V. Ravishankar) (03/12/86)
> From ams@philabs.UUCP (Ali Shaik) Mon Mar 10 10:36:07 1986 > So I would like to have more discussion on > this topic, including info from those knowledgeable about Hindu law. > Those who followed the stuff about Manu, etc would know all is > not well there either. Specifically, property rights of Hindu > women are pretty bad, aren't they: is it true that property > would go to the eldest son rather than the widow? and that property > is divided unequally among sons& daughters (sure, this holds > among Muslims too..). And what correlation does this have with > the dowry system: do lower property rights lead to lower > "economic worth" of women? Not so. The law governing Hindus in India (based upon the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) is that when a Hindu male dies without leaving a will, his estate is divided in EQUAL portions among his surviving "Class 1" heirs. His "Class 1" heirs are: his wife, his mother, his daughters, and his sons. Therefore his sons inherit no more of their father's estate than do their sisters, mother, or grandmother (and so women do not have "lower" property rights). As for the "Laws" of Manu, I am not aware of any time in recorded Indian history when these were truly the law of the land. In this sense, the comparison with the "Shariat" laws is inappropriate. The Laws of Manu are little more than an archaic curiosity that bear as much relevance to present-day Hindu laws as the "stone-to-death" laws of the Old Testament bear to the Christian world of today. Their main significance is really to social anthropologists.
reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/20/86)
The wife has no right to her husband's "inherited wealth". Only sons have. On the other hand, the wife may have right to her husband's "earned wealth". I am not sure howmuch.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/26/86)
In article <101800015@uiucdcs>, reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > The wife has no right to her husband's "inherited wealth". Only sons have. > On the other hand, the wife may have right to her husband's "earned wealth". > I am not sure howmuch. Not so at all. I was able to find a copy of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in our library, and it confirms the substance of my earlier posting that the rights of female heirs are equal with that of male heirs. Your statement roughly corresponds to the law governing "joint-family" property prior to 1956. However, even that has changed as a result of the act. Let me quote from the Hindu Succession Act (Sec. 10 applying to a male dying intestate): "The property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs is class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules: Rule 1: The intestate's widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share. [My comment: While bigamy has been contrary to custom in most Hindu communities, it is possible (given the diversity of custom in India) that it may have been found in some communities prior to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 outlawing the practice.] Rule 2: The surviving sons and daughters, and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Rule 3: The heirs in the branch of each predeceased son or each predeceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share. Rule 4: The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3....(etc.)" The Schedule mentioned in the act lists the following persons as Class I heirs: Son, daughter, widow, mother. Now, if a son or daughter has died before the father, then the above rules are applied recursively to the tree rooted at the predeceased son or daughter, except that at this subtree the mother is not a Class I heir (she already having received a full share of her husband's property). This recursive rule may be applied one further level (in the case of a predeceased grandchild). This also confirms an asymmetry in the law biased in favour of female heirs: The father is not a Class I heir to his son's property (he is a Class II heir). Since surviving Class I heirs inherit property before, and to the exclusion of heirs in classes II, III, and IV, the father typically gets none of his son's property. On the other hand, if a son dies single (and childless), his mother inherits all his property. Now regarding the "inherited property" issue: (The following will not be found in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). As per the traditional "Mitakshara" law that used to be followed by most of India (Bengal followed the "Dayabhaga" law, and NO PLACE in India followed the "Laws of Manu"), "joint-family" property was owned by all the males in the joint family as co-parcenaries. The very birth of a son conferred upon him a share in the "joint-family" property EQUAL to that of his father and all others (uncles, brothers, etc.) having a share in the property. Hence, on the death of his father, the property devolved NOT by succession, but simply by survivorship. The wife of a deceased male did have full rights to income accruing from her husband's share of the property, but no right to the property itself. Under present law, however, if a male having a share in such "joint-family" property dies leaving a female Class I heir, his share of the property is to be divided as per rules 1-4 above. The old law relating to undivided "joint-family" property applies ONLY if there is NEITHER a Class I female heir NOR any Class I male heirs of a Class I female heir (if she be predeceased). This ensures that female heirs also get their share of "joint-family" or "Mitakshara" property.