constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 = where a female Hindu dies intestate, the property would devolve first upon the sons and daughters and the husband and then on the heirs of the husband and it is only thereafter that the mother and the father are recognized. Section 16 specifies that among the heirs referred to under sub-Section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry are to be preferred to those in any succeeding entry. On the other hand, in the case of a male Hindu dying intestate, Section 8 stipulates that the estate will first devolve upon the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule.

1

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX

           S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                   RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9581/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2017

in AL No. 423/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay)

KAMAL ANANT KHOPKAR Petitioner(s)

                            VERSUS

DR ASHISH SIDHRAM HANKARE Respondent(s)

(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AND REFILING AND

EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 1517/2018 (X)

(WITH IA No.186057/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)

Date : 18-02-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Buva Mrunal Dattatraya, Adv.

Mr. Salunkhe Dhairyashil D., Adv.

               Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., AOR

              Mr. Manu T. Ramachandran, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.

Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR

Ms. Rinchen Wangmo, Adv.

Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                           O R D E R

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9581/2018

Delay condoned.

The petitioner and the respondent have settled the

dispute in the course of a mediation through the auspices

of Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel.

2

The Court records its appreciation of the valuable

assistance rendered by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned

senior counsel in enabling this family dispute to be

settled.

We appreciate the fair stand taken by the parties as

a result of which the dispute has been settled. The

consent terms signed by the parties and by the respective

advocates are taken on the record. They have been filed

together with the compilation of additional documents.

There shall be an order in terms of the consent terms.

As and by way of a consequential order, we direct

that:

(i) The parties shall cooperate with each other

in duly effecting the consent terms and shall sign

all relevant deeds and documents required to

implement them; and

(ii) All concerned authorities shall act on the

consent terms which have been accepted by this Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No. 1517/2018

The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution has been instituted in order to challenge

the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 on the ground that there is a

3

discrimination in the devolution of the estate of a woman

who dies intestate, in comparison with the rules for

devolution where a male has died intestate. In the case

of a male Hindu dying intestate, the provisions of

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 apply.

The contention of the petitioner is that where a

female Hindu dies intestate, the property would devolve

first upon the sons and daughters and the husband and

then on the heirs of the husband and it is only

thereafter that the mother and the father are recognized.

Section 16 specifies that among the heirs referred to

under sub-Section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry

are to be preferred to those in any succeeding entry. On

the other hand, in the case of a male Hindu dying

intestate, Section 8 stipulates that the estate will

first devolve upon the relatives specified in Class I of

the Schedule.

The Writ Petition initially came up with a Special

Leave Petition, which was filed by the petitioner against

an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting her caveat on

the ground that she did not have a caveatable interest in

the property of her deceased daughter, during the life

time of the spouse of the deceased.

During the course of the hearing, the parties

attempted to explore the possibility of a settlement.

The dispute has been settled with the intervention of

learned senior counsel. Hence, the Special Leave

4

Petition has been disposed of by an order passed today.

However, the Writ Petition which has been instituted

before this Court under Article 32 raises an important

question of gender equality and, hence, we are inclined

to issue notice.

Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

A copy of the Writ Petition be served on the office

of the Learned Attorney General for India.

We have requested Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior

counsel to continue to assist this Court.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

 AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER 

Note :-

With great respect to their Highness

I felt that there is no discrimination of gender between Sec.8 and Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act.

As a matter of fact – Woman get properties from two sources – one was from her parents and another was from her husband.

In the absence of immeidate successors like children and husband

the property fell to her parents or their successors if it was acquired by her from her parents

or

In the absence of immeidate successors like children and husband –

if the property fell to her by her husband, it goes to husband’s successors .

In my view this an advantage but not discrimination . we can not find this advantage under Sec.8 – every thing goes to male successors only – even if the property was given by his parent in laws – the person or their successors who gave property have no recognition in the eye of law .