Business   

Hindu Law: can women be coparceners?

A daughter has been given partition right in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) with effect from September 2005 by an amendment to Hindu law by the Government. Can a Hindu woman have two statuses under the Income-tax Act — individual and HUF after September 2005?

Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gives coparcenary right to a daughter equal to the right of a son and she can also demand partition in respect of the assets of the joint family, it should logically follow that the amounts so received by her on partition should be treated as belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family under her management, if not as karta, so that the income from such assets so received need not be clubbed with her personal income.

As otherwise, there is no real equality between her and her brother. She can claim a separate status for assets received from the Hindu Undivided Family distinct from her personal status. I believe that it is possible for her to claim a separate status for property inherited from joint family under the new law. Is it correct?

The fact that the daughter is given equal right as the son does not make her a coparcener. What is amended is Hindu Succession Law and not the Hindu law in all other respects. Further, she is a member of the father's family before marriage and husband's family after marriage. There is no change in law in this respect.

The property, which she inherits from her father's joint family cannot be mixed with her husband's joint family. She cannot also start an independent joint family. The property, which she will inherit under the amended law, will become her absolute personal property. Even prior to amendment, she was recognised as the absolute owner of the property to which she succeeds. Merely because there is a tax advantage in having dual status of both individual and joint family for her brother, it does not follow that she is discriminated against. In fact, she is in a better position because she has absolute right over the property, while her brother takes his share of joint family property subject to the rights of the other family members. As karta, he merely manages the property of the joint family of which he is the karta and does not have absolute right over such property. In fact, it may even be argued that there is reverse discrimination in favour of the daughter in view of her absolute right notwithstanding the tax aspect.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Institutionalise financial education
Emergence of a plethora of video tutorials
HP unveils new ink-based printing technology
Hindu Law: can women be coparceners?
Not all bank deposits qualify for relief u/s 80C

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu