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:

1. General law
2. 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 Hindustan 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 Hindu parents.

The Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Shastri vs Muldas directly 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 bench ruled.

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 (2015) and Danamma Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018).

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'.

Written By: Jash Raj Gupta - Amity University
Email: [email protected]