Skip to main content

OMPRAKASH & OTHERS VS RADHAKRISHNAN & OTHERS.

   OMPRAKASH & OTHERS VS RADHAKRISHNAN & OTHERS.


               In 1955, Smt Narayani Devi and Deendayal Sharma solemnised their marriage. Within three months of the marriage, Narayani Devi was left a widow and was banished to her parents’ home by her marital family. She continued to earn a living and departed this life on July 11,1996. She died childless and had left no will behind for someone to claim her substantial amount of property. With that she had left a huge sum in her provident fund  account. All of Narayani Devi’s  property were not inherited from her parents. Now the issue rose when both hers and her deceased husband’s family filed an application for grant of succession certificate in terms of  section 372of  Succession Act. 

                 The Supreme Court, relying on section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955(HSA) . Section 15 of the Act reads as under :

“15. General  rules of succession in the case of  female  hindus.-

 (1) The property of a female  Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-

          (A)firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including children of any predeceased son or           daughter)and  the husband;

          (B)secondly, upon heirs of the husband:

          (C) Thirdly, upon the  mother and  father ;

         (D) fourthly, upon the heirs  of the mother. 

        (E) lastly upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in  subsection  (1),

        (A) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in absence of any son or daughter of the  deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter ), not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and 

        (B) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the  children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”

 The section 15(1) lays down the ordinary rule of succession while section 15 (2) (a) carves out an exception thereto -  However, law is silent with regard to self acquired property of woman.  Na rayani’s family received nothing at all whereas her in-laws who drove her out of her marital home, provided no support financially  and had not been contact ever since had acquired her weath and property. This judgement by the supreme court was delivered by Justice S B Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma on the 5th of May 2009. The appellants, represented by N.R Choudhary and Somnath Mukherjee were Narayani’s brother who took the place of  her mother who passed away before the verdict, the respondents represented by Arvind V. Sawant, Senior Advovate (Nitin S.Tambwekar,  B.S  Sai and K Rajeev, Advocates) were the sons of the sister of Narayani’s deceased husband.

The court said “ this is a hard case…But then only because a  case appears to be hard would not lead us to invoke different interpretation of a statutory provision, which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle in law that the sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous. 

              This verdict, though seems to be legally correct due to the prevailing patriarchal laws, does not fall in line with  gender equality principles and  needs to be reviewed at the earliest. Had the Narayani been a male, her self acquired wealth would have stayed in her own family. Narayani upholding her dignity and conscience , if alive would  never shared her property with her in-laws that disowned her at such a fragile state of mind after her husband’ s untimely demise. What we need urgently is new just laws that aren’t inherently discriminatory towards gender. 

This case is revolves around a sexist law that seems to turn a blind eye to women regarding matters of self acclaimed property. The fact that there is no law that talks about self-acquired property speaks volumes about how the law views a man’s property snd s woman’s property. Lets break free from the notion that  women are not able to acquire wealth an property without acquiring it from her parents. 

Even though the verdict was given in lines with the laws, it is  morally wrong and illogical to let the in-laws acquire Narayani’s wealth despite the fact that she had left no will. This unfortunate turn of events have lead us too realise the urgent  need of  law that looks at both the sexes through one window and entangle them from their gender roles. It is important to acknowledge that legislative reforms, implementation  of legal policies, responding to issues that contribute to sexual inequalities   are steps forward to achieve gender justice. 



                      
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more