2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 499

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY LAW IN INDIA:

NEED OF THE HOUR
Vijender Kumar*
Abstract
Matrimonial property is one of the most important issues pertaining to the
institution of marriage. In spite of immense contributions made by women
to the household economy, they receive unsatisfactory financial support.
Their contribution to the growth of the family is not seen as productive
work and therefore they are not given any economic co-ownership with
equal rights. This paper argues that there is a need to deliberate rationally
on this issue. Marriage ought to be recognised as an equal economic
partnership between the husband and the wife. Indian laws need to make
clear provisions regarding matrimonial proper ty and its share among
spouses. This paper also tries to study the strains and stresses in the
introduction of the concept of matrimonial property in the existing family
system. In order to emphasise on the issue, an attempt is made to closely
analyse the inheritance rights of women in different legal systems. It is
followed by a study of different functional models of matrimonial property
across the world and a discussion on the best suited model for the Indian
scenario.

I Introduction
WOMEN CONSTITUTE half the worlds population, perform multi-skilled
responsibilities in the matrimonial home, but receive unsatisfactory and
insufficient financial support as their contribution to the growth of family is
not considered productive work and they are not given any economic co-
ownership with equal rights. In the regime of matrimonial property in India,
spouses continue to treat the property they bring into the marriage as their
separate property. The valuation of the matrimonial property that may take
place at the time of death of the husband or the dissolution of marriage
follows what, B. Sivaramayya referred to as the separation of property
model. Under such a system there is no corpus of matrimonial property
over which both the spouses can exercise a claim. There is no conception of
an economic partnership between the spouses that would come into existence
upon marriage. 1 As a result, for many women, the initial corpus of wealth
that they have at the time of marriage, together with accretions to their property
that are made by their own effort or through gifts or inheritance, constitute

* Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Assam.

1 B. Sivaramayya, Matrimonial Pr operty Law in India 112 (Oxford University Press,
1999).
500 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

the only property over which they exercise ownership at the time of the
dissolution of marriage.
In the matrimonial home the disproportionate holding of assets occurs
primarily for three reasons; firstly, laws and policies in India do not recognise
domestic work as productive work; secondly, nature and nurture
responsibilities of women, where they are frequently forced to give up their
careers to look after their homes, are not considered as productive work;
and thirdly, even when women take up jobs, they are confined to relatively
low-paid ones. The solution of these problems is also three fold: firstly,
recognise domestic work as productive work; secondly, draw women into
the managerial and remunerative work; and thirdly, recognise marriage as
an equal economic partnership between husband and wife, and acknowledge
wifes contribution to the acquisition of assets by way of suitable legal
mechanism.
Legislative approach and judicial pronouncements have resulted in
amelioration of the proprietary status of a Hindu female. But much remains
to be done. An analysis of the various statutory provisions and judicial opinions
reveals that the Hindu females personal and proprietary status more or less
remains the same as it was before the emergence of the statutory era in
Hindu law. Juristic efforts have been eclipsed by the socio-religious influence
on Hindu society. Eventually, property and personality are interdependent
terms; while property as a concept is inconceivable without person, likewise
personality is inconceivable without property. The study of the legal systems
of the world, ancient and modern, reveals that females have been denied the
proprietary status under all the male dominated legal systems, deteriorating
their social status and reducing them to the other class, definitely of inferior
human beings.
Under Hindu law, ancient and modern, no author, except Vijnaneswara,
ever advocated and recognised full proprietary rights to females. In fact section
14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the literal reproduction of
Vijnaneswaras rule that all property, howsoever acquired, shall become the
absolute property of a Hindu female. During the British Indian legal history
the Privy Council preferred the Dayabhaga rule limiting the proprietary
independence of Hindu females and, thus, Vijnaneswaras view could not
develop into a rule of law.
The Hindu females absolute right to property advocated by Vijnaneswara
was judicially curtailed by the Privy Council for the first time in 1866 in
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 501

Mussumat Thakoor Deyhee v. Rai Baluk Rai. 2 This case was decided by the
judicial committee of the Privy Council in order to reconcile the then existing
conflicting interpretations given to Dharmasastras on stridhan. The Bengal
school accepted the restricted interpretation of the text of Yajnavalkya which
was finally accorded approval by the judicial committee of the Privy Council.
Thus, was born the concept of womans limited estate which in 1937 was
statutorily recognised in the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937.
The concept of Hindu womans limited estate gave rise to two types of
property owned by Hindu woman, viz., (i) womans limited estate; and (ii)
stridhan. It was only in 1956 that womans limited estate, a judicial creation,
was undone by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further amendments have
been made to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, wherein the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth
become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and
have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had, if
she been a son in the joint Hindu family (HJF) governed by Mitakshara law. 3
The amendment is a welcome step towards socio-legal and economic
empowerment of Hindu daughters, but it provides equal proprietary rights
only in the family of birth. This amendment has nothing to do with proprietary
rights of a woman who is in marriage with a male coparcener of another
family and contributes her share in bearing and rearing of children and
household works in the matrimonial home but gets no proprietary rights as
a legally wedded wife, (though as a widow of her deceased husband, she
becomes her deceased husbands class-I heir as specified in the schedule of
section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and being the widow of pre-
deceased son of her father-in-law, and gets inheritance rights).
Efforts and attempts to bring about a viable change in the social status of
Hindu females did not succeed because the problem of females life-long
tutelage has not been attended to in the right perspective. Efforts can be
made to analyse the English and the Hindu legal system to introduce a
matrimonial property law where both spouses should have equal share in
the property either earned before or on marriage, or after marriage. On the
death of her husband, the wife steps into the shoes of her deceased husband
as a widow of a coparcener and gets the same share which her deceased
husband would have taken had he been alive but during her husbands life

2 (1866) XI MIA 39.

3 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, s. 6.
502 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

time she has no proprietary right in the matrimonial home. The only right
she has, while her marriage is persisting, is the right to get maintenance from
her husband which is not even enough to survive with dignity. If she divorces
her husband because of any reason she gets nothing from her husbands
property except permanent maintenance alimony. In the absence of clear
law of maintenance, it is left to the discretion of the court to decide what
would be the amount of permanent maintenance alimony, and for obvious
reasons, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, in
these circumstances it is desirable to have matrimonial property law in the
country. In matrimonial property, legal recognition should be given to the
economic value of the contribution made by the wife through household
work for the purpose of determining ownership of matrimonial property,
instead of continuing the archaic test of actual financial contribution. 4 This
paper analyses the strains and stresses in the introduction of the concept of
matrimonial property in the existing family system where property is an
integral part of the marriage institution and it devolves on a person as per the
status he / she holds in the family.
II Concept of matrimonial property
Until the recent past matrimonial home was to be provided by the husband
only. However, with the passage of time women are equally contributing in
the making of a matrimonial home, therefore, a matrimonial home should be
recognised as belonging to both the spouses holding it as joint tenants. The
connotation of matrimonial home in the Indian context gives rise to a special
problem within Hindu law, namely, to what extent a joint family house
(dwelling house) can be treated as a matrimonial home. If the spouses share,
capable of separate possession and enjoyment, is regarded as a matrimonial
home, the problem may assume an awkward, if not a serious turn, if a
divorced wife decides to exercise her right to live in the joint family house of
the husband.5 At present, no clear answer is possible and it is hoped that the
existing legal system will meet the challenges of the occupants of the joint
family house. The prevailing approach of English law giving power to a
court to adjust the assets is unsuited to India. It involves time-consuming
determination by the courts and fails to recognise marriage as an economic
partnership with equal rights. Hence, Indian law should make it clear who

4 Indira Jaising, Womens Inheritance Rights in Contemporary Jurisprudence in Nitya

Rao and Luise Rur up (eds.), A Just Right: Womens ownership of Natural Resour ces
and Livelihood Security 110-21 (1993).
5 Supra note 1 at 83.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 503

provides the matrimonial home on marriage and within its ambit which
property should be recognised as matrimonial property subject to equal
distribution on the dissolution of marriage by divorce or death.
An attempt to define matrimonial property was made by the legislators
while amending and codifying the law of marriage among Hindus in the
form of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, HMA) and to regulate the
property acquired at or about the time of marriage of a spouse. While doing
so, section 27 of HMA provides that in any proceeding under this Act, the
court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper
with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage,
which may belong jointly to both husband and wife. However, if any
matrimonial matter comes before the court, it is difficult for the court to make
a decision with respect to the property under this section as the source of
property is very narrowly designed by the legislators.
The property presented by relatives, friends, family members, in the form
of gifts to the bride or the bridegroom at the time of marriage and the gifts
given by parents and relatives after marriage are included in the purview of
matrimonial property, even though the acquisition of this property, did not
involve any labour or skill of the spouses. The intention of the donor is
given importance with respect to such properties and hence, the property
belongs to both the spouses, as part of the matrimonial property which may
be divided equally between them at the time of dissolution of marriage. In
case the donor intended to gift the property to either of the two spouses,
then it is considered as the separate property of such spouse and is not
subjected to division between them. Therefore, the use of may rather than
shall has been taken into consideration by the legislators in section 27 of
HMA. Hence, the present section 27 of the Act does not serve the purpose to
introduce matrimonial property in the matrimonial home where both husband
and wife share it on the dissolution of their marriage, if such situation emerges
among them; and it shall provide equal economic support to the parties on
divorce.
In addition to an attempt to define matrimonial property under section
27 of HMA, the matrimonial property shall consist of property acquired by
the spouse(s) at or about the time of marriage. It indicates clear intention of
the legislators that the property in its any form presented at or about the time
of marriage must be considered the property jointly owned by both the
husband and the wife. Hence, the legislators did not include the property
which is inherited at or about the time of marriage or inheritable by both the
504 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

spouses within the purview of this section nor the property acquired by
either both the spouses or one of them after their marriage. The legislators
did not give due thought to the contribution of the wife in making of household
and indirectly contributes towards the acquisition of a lot of properties. Her
contribution forms the base of the family and provides the opportunity to
the other earning members in the family to acquire properties. However, the
level of contribution differs from household to household. Therefore, a wifes
non-economic contribution must be recognised in law and the property
acquired by the husband during mar riage must be made jointly owned
property of both the husband and the wife. If, for any reason, they decide to
divorce in future, the property so acquired, must be divided on divorce
equitably.
An initiative was taken by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly to provide
equal share to women in the matrimonial property at the time of dissolution
of marriage by the introduction of Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women
upon Marriage) Bill, 2012. The bill defines matrimonial property to include
self-acquired properties-moveable and immovable, husbands property,
agricultural land along with pensions, provident fund. This is a welcome
step taken by the Government of Maharashtra but we need to wait until this
bill is passed.
II Judicial approach on matrimonial property law
The phrases used in the section 27 of the HMA may belong jointly to
both the husband and the wife and at or about the time of marriage have
created scope for contradictory interpretations by the courts in adjudication
of justice. The courts have interpreted these phrases differently while executing
matters on section 27 of HMA.
In Surinder Kaur v. Madan Gapal Singh ,6 the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, in the context of section 27 of the Act held thus: 7
i. the application for disposal of property must be made at the time
when the matrimonial proceedings are pending in the court and
before the judgment has been pronounced;
ii. it is not obligatory on the part of the court to admit such an
application. It is discretionary on its part;

6 AIR 1980 P&H 334.

7. Id., para 7.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 505

iii. the decree made under the section concerned by the court must be
just and proper giving importance to the adjustment of the share of
the parties;
iv. the property which has been presented at or about the time of
marriage, includes not only the property which has been given to
the spouses at the time of marriage but also at any time before or
after the marriage. The most essential condition here is that the
property must have been given to the spouses in relation to the
marriage and close to the time of marriage. The time duration is of
importance here;
v. the concerned property may be given to either of the two spouses
or both of them jointly; and
vi. when the matter is brought before the court of competent jurisdiction,
the property concerned must belong to either of the two spouses or
jointly to both of them.
The court further observed that irrespective of the source of the property,
the nature of the property, intention of the donor or by the agreement of the
spouses is given importance to decide whether section 27 governs the
property. To exemplify, if a property is meant for joint use by the spouses,
then the property belongs to them jointly, irrespective of the fact that it is
owned by one of them exclusively. The court further observed that a property
belonging to the spouses jointly is different from the property which was
received by the spouses jointly. 8 In Sunita Shankar Salvi v. Shankar Laxman, 9
the parties of divorce petition were living in a flat which was registered in the
joint names of the wife and the husband. The family court held that the flat
be divided equally between the husband and the wife. When the matter was
brought before the High Court of Bombay in appeal, the high court upheld
the decree of the family court and observed that the wife has 50% right, title
and interest in the said flat jointly owned by them.
In Kamta Prasad v. Om Wati, 10 the Allahabad High Court held that the
court can pass a decree with respect to any property which is owned by
either the husband or the wife in addition to the property owned by both of

8. Id., para 11.

9 AIR 2003 Bom 431.
10. AIR 1972 All 153.
506 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

them jointly.11 The court further held that the provision gives power to the
court to deal with both types of properties, belonging to either of them and
both of them jointly, and the power is not restricted to the properties owned
by both of them jointly. 12 Similarly, in Hemant Kumar v. Laxmi Devi, 13 the
Allahabad High Court held that property owned by either the husband or the
wife would be covered under this section provided that it was presented at
or around the time of marriage. The court stressed on the use of the term
may and not must, the latter being obligatory in nature. The use of the
term may suggests that the property exclusively owned by one of the spouses
is not excluded. 14 For any property to be governed by this section, it is
necessary that the same was presented to the parties in relation to marriage
and not otherwise. 15 In contrast, the Delhi High Court in Shukla v. Brij
Bhushan, 16 held that the court does not have the power under section 27 of
the HMA to pass a decree with respect to any property owned by either the
husband or the wife exclusively.17
In Krishnan v. Padma, 18 the Karnataka High Court had interpreted the
term at as referred in section 27 of the HMA to mean actual time of marriage
and the word about to mean near or roundabout the time of marriage and
not subsequent to the marriage. The court had cautioned not to confuse the
property given to spouse at the time of marriage with property given after
marriage. 19 However, in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta
Balkrishna Kadam, 20 the Supreme Court of India held that property under
this section would not be restricted to property given to a spouse at the time
of marriage only but would also include property given before as well as
after marriage. The Supreme Court specified that the property must be given
in relation to the marriage. 21

11. Id., para 3.

12. Id., para 6.
13. AIR 2004 All 126.
14. Id., para 21.
15. Vijender Kumar (rev.), John D. Mayne, Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage 536 (Bharat
Law House, New Delhi 17th edn., 2014).
16. AIR 1982 Del 223. See also Amarendranath Sanyal v. Krishna Sanyal 1993 (1) HLR
578.
17. Shukla, id., para 2.
18. AIR 1968 Kant 226.
19. Id., para 18.
20. AIR 1997 SC 3562: (1997) 7 SCC 500.
21. Id., para 13.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 507

On the contrary, in Surinder Kaur, 22 the court case interpreted the term to
include the property which was given to the parties prior to or after the
marriage. The property as contemplated by section 27 of the Act is not the
property which is given to the wife at the time of marriage only. It includes
the property given to the parties before or after marriage also, so long as it
relates to marriage. In Kamalakar Ganesh Sambhus v. Tejas Kamalakar
Sambhus,23 the High Court of Bombay held that the provision does not govern
the property which was acquired by the parties by their joint efforts during
their marriage and deals with the property which was presented at or about
the time of marriage. 24 Thus, it can be seen from different judicial
pronouncements that the courts have interpreted the terms in a contradictory
manner leading to ambiguity.
In a case where wife claimed return of gold and silver ornaments given to
her by her parents, the application for recovery of said stridhana was filed
under section 27 of HMA and sections 4 and 151, order 7, rule 7 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter, CPC). The claim was allowed as all
provisions of CPC are applicable to matrimonial proceedings under the Act.25
Similarly in Sangeeta B. Kadam v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam, 26 the
claim of wife was for disposal of property on divorce which included gold
and silver ornaments presented to her at the time of marriage. It was held
that the family court has jurisdiction in the matter and the wife was returned
the ornaments so claimed. However, efforts were made by the wife to prove
that her stridhana was lying with the husband and a list of articles was
enclosed with the petition (which was not signed by the husband or his
parents), but cognisance could not be taken as the same had not been proved
with reliable evidence. Hence, an application of the wife was rejected.27
In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar,28 the Supreme Court observed that neither
section 27 of HMA nor section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 go to the
extent of providing that the claim of a woman on the basis of stridhana is
completely abolished. The section 27 of the HMA does not in any way take

22. Supra note 6.

23. AIR 2004 Bom 478.
24. Id. para 3.
25 Manish Nema v. Sandhya Nema, AIR 2009 MP 108.
26 AIR 2005 Bom 262.
27 Renu v. Rakesh Kannojia, AIR 2013 Utr 1.
28 AIR 1985 SC 628: (1985) 2 SCC 370: (1985) 3 SCR 191.
508 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

away the right of the wife to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging
to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband.
III Women and inheritance rights
In India, property rights including inheritance rights are attached with the
institution of marriage wherein different laws are applicable to marriage of
persons belonging to different religions, faiths and spiritual traits. The Hindu
law of intestate succession is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Section 30 of the Act provides substantive law of testamentary succession
and procedural law of will is laid down in the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The Muslim intestate succession is governed by quaranic law and testamentary
succession is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, whereas intestate
and testamentary successions of Christian and Parsis are governed by the
Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, inheritance and succession laws are
well settled wherein a woman is provided with property rights in the
matrimonial home but these rights are subject to some or the other incidence
to happen. Only then these rights are put into execution, otherwise they
remain suspended rights. However, there is no property right in the
matrimonial home where wife gets property right by virtue being married to
a male member of the family. A woman in marriage gives birth to a male or
a female child, the child so born becomes coparcener under Mitakshara
Hindu law and gets an interest by birth in the coparcenary property of his or
her father, but the woman who has given birth gets no property right by
virtue of marriage or being the mother of a coparcener. However, on being
widowed, she gets inheritance rights from her deceased husband and / or if
her husband predeceased his father, she becomes an heir to her father-in-
law and acquires inheritance rights.
Property rights of muslim women
Under Muslim law, both Sunni and Shia, a daughter though a quranic
sharer can be excluded by customs and statues. 29 Though at variance with
the quranic principles, these customs are valid and treat a daughter as non-
existent at the time of opening of the intestate succession. In some communities
in Jammu and Kashmir, a daughter can succeed only in the absence of all
male agnates of the deceased, while in other states she can inherit only if she

29 A childless widow, in the absence of all other relations of the deceased, only can
inherit his total property following the doctrine of radd (return). See Abdul Hamid
Khan v. Peare Mirza, AIR 1935 Oudh 78.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 509

is a Khananashin.30 A daughter is also not entitled to inherit the watan land

under the Watan Act, 1886 (Bombay). The Oudh Estates Act, 1869 that follows
the rules of primogeniture for devolution of the taluqdari properties also
excludes the daughter and her heirs. 31 In Sheikh Madar v. Kursheeda Begum, 32
the trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, both affirmed the principle
of Muslim law of inheritance under Hanafi law i.e. the residuary can get a
share on partition if the property is left after distributing it to the sharer
which constitutes the first category of property inheritors. If after giving the
share to the daughter any share is left, then the residuary would definitely be
entitled for the same. Since the daughter and the residuaries were demanding
for the share on partition simultaneously, it did not give a ground to the wife
of the deceased, i.e., the widow to refuse the share of the residuary. It was
also stated that if the share which is to be divided is equal to unity then the
residuaries would not be entitled to a share but if the share to be divided is
less than a unity then the sharers would inherit the property first and then
later the residuaries would share the rest of the left over property.
In Kulusumbi v. Aziza Begum 33 it was held that the property inherited by
the widow on the death of her husband cannot be divested on her remarriage.
In this case, the death of Osman Pasha (husband of Aziza begum), Aziza
Begum got a right to her 1/8 thshare as his sharer along with the mother,
brother and sister of Osman Pasha and her first husband. These heirs had
their shares specifically carved out in accordance with the provisions of Hanafi
law. The relatives of the deceased claimed that since the widow has now
remarried, she had an evil intention in the first place and there was a collusion
between her and the killer of her husband. The same was thrashed by both
the trial and the High Court of Karnataka and it was held that the position of
the property already inherited by the wife would not be affected as per the
Hanafi school of law. Hence, the court held that a vested inheritance is the
share which vests in an heir at the moment of the ancestors death. If the heir
dies before distribution, the share of the inheritance which has vested in him
will pass to such persons as are his heirs at the time of his death. The shares

30 Iqbal Ali Khan (rev.), D. F. Mulla, Principles of Mahomedan Law 63 (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2013).
31 Ghulam Hassan v. Mst. Saja, AIR 1984 J&K 26, Mohammad Zia-Ullah v. Rafiq
Mohammad, AIR 1939 Oudh 213; Abdul Latif Khan v. Mt. Abadi Begum, AIR 1934
PC 188.
32 2005 (5) ALD 818; 2005 (5) ALT 591.
33 ILR 1986 Kant 4027: 1986 (2) KarLJ 388.
510 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

therefore are to be deter mined at each death. 34 In Taufeeq Hassan v.

Dr.Khurshid Ara Begum 35 and Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza v. Union of India 36
similar principles relating to both Hanafi and Shia law of inheritance were
affir med where daughters, whether mar ried or unmarried were in
consideration.
Property rights of Christian women
The property rights of Christian women are laid down in the Indian
Succession Act, 1925. The authoritative case which deals with property rights
of Christian women is the case of Mary Roy v. State of Kerala37 where it was
laid down that daughter is entitled to equal share in property of the father as
that of the son. It may be noted that the practice of Christian daughters
executing release deeds at the time of marriage which get them excluded
from succession are not valid. It is so because a Christian daughter has no
pre-existing right in the family property and her rights arise only when her
parents die intestate. Therefore, only a release deed executed after the date
of intestacy would be valid. An adopted child cannot claim the right to
succession unless a custom of adoption can be proved. If it is proved then
adopted daughter is akin to a real daughter and can claim equal share as that
of the son. As for Christian widow, sections 33 and 33-A of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 are applicable. If the heirs of the deceased are the
widow and lineal descendants, then, the widow receives 1/3 rdshare, while
the balance 2/3rd goes to the lineal descendants. If the intestate has no lineal
descendants, but has left persons who are of kindred to him, of his property
shall belong to the widow and the other shall go to those who are of
kindred to him. If the intestate has left none who are of kindred to him, the
whole of the property shall belong to the widow. A widow may be excluded
from inheritance by a valid contract made before her marriage.
Property rights of Parsi women
The property rights of Parsi women are governed by the succession laws
initially laid down in the Parsi Interstate Succession Act, 1925 which was later
incorporated in chapter-III, part-V, (sections 50-56) of the Indian Succession

34 M. Hidayatullah (rev.), D. F. Mulla, Principles of Mohomedan Law 53 (17th edn.

1972).
35 2006 (3) ALD 494.
36 2006 (3) CHN 407.
37 AIR 1986 SC 1011: (1986) 2 SCC 209: (1986) 1 SCR 371.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 511

Act, 1925. Women under the Parsi law are entitled to receive property by
interstate succession.38 However, the underlying criterion for receiving property
under Parsi law is that the person should be a part of the Parsi community.
Children of Parsi fathers by non-Parsi women are admitted into the Zoroastrian
religion and are governed by the Parsi succession laws. However, children of
Parsi women married to non-Parsi males are not considered Parsis and have
no right under Parsi law. 39
There are no restrictions imposed on a Parsi man, if he wants to give
away his property and women have no right to object to such an action.
Women, who are entitled to receive property by interstate succession under
Parsi law: a daughter gets half the share of a son in the property of the father.
If a Parsi woman dies interstate, her property is divided equally among her
husband and children. Therefore, a daughter is entitled to equal share in the
property of her mother. Parsi adoption per se is not recognised by custom or
law for the purposes of inheritance and succession. However, a Parsi widow
without any children can adopt a son on the fourth day of her husbands
death. This is for the temporary purpose of performing certain religious rites
for the dead man. This adoption is for a limited purpose and does not grant
any property rights on the adopted child. A Parsi widow has, in the property
of her deceased husband, an equal property right to that of a son and twice
the share of a daughter. If a person dies interstate leaving only a widow and
no lineal descendants, the widow can take half of the property. If there is
any widow of lineal descendants, the widow and the widow of the lineal
descendant each must be given 1/3 rd of the property. In such cases the
remaining property shall be distributed among the remaining relatives of the
deceased. However, if she remarries during the lifetime of her husband, she
is not entitled to any share in his property.
Property rights of Hindu women
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides provisions for two entirely
different schemes of intestate succession based on grounds of sex which are
distinct from each other. 40 There is further divergence in case of female
intestates linked with the source of the property which is the subject matter

38 Shailendra Jain and Peeyushi Diwan (rev.), Paras Diwan, Hindu Law 228-229 (2 nd
edn., 2005).
39 I b i d .
40 Ss. 8-13 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provide provisions for male intestate
succession, whereas ss. 15-16provide provisions for female intestate succession.
512 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

of inheritance. Thus, where a woman inherits property from her parents and
dies issueless, this property on her death does not go to her own heirs but
goes to the heirs of her father. Similarly, where she inherits the property from
her husband or her father-in-law, on her death this property goes to her
husbands heirs from whom or from whose father she had inherited the
property. The sub-division of the schemes of succession in case of female
intestate is outdated and irrational. The heirs are not described as brother,
sister, her brother-in-law etc., but as heirs of her parents, and heirs of her
husband. She is perceived to have no identity of her own. The legislature
while framing this scheme was influenced by the Mitakshara law, its concepts
of stridhana and inheritance by female in double capacity. This reversion of
the once inherited property back to her fathers or her husbands heirs shows
a desperateness on the part of the legislature to treat her only as a temporary
occupier.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and Hindu daughters
Under shastric Hindu law the male heirs were put on a higher footing by
providing that they shall inherit an additional independent share in the
coparcenary property over and above what they inherit equally with female
heirs on intestacy. The concept of coparcenary was that of an exclusive right
of male members in the family. Now this concept has changed while
introducing daughter of a coparcener as coparcener by statutory amendment,
if the family is governed by the Mitakshara law. However, even today, after
the new law came into force on September 5, 2005 coparcenary remains a
primary entitlement of male members; no doubt law provides for equal division
of share between all heirs, male and female on the death of a male coparcener,
but in practice the scene is totally different. Legally, on intestacy self-acquired
property devolves equally between male and female heirs but female heirs
are asked to relinquish their share by making relinquishment deeds. Before
the amendment of 2005, if the intestate property included a dwelling house,
the female heirs had no right to partition until the male heirs chose to divide
their respective shares but now the situation is different. The daughters are
made coparcener, so they can ask their share on partition from the dwelling
house property which is if they wish to do so. Further, if a Hindu female dies
intestate but issueless, then her property which is inherited by her on the
intestacy of her parents, devolves first on the heirs of her father, then on her
mothers heirs; if the property is inherited by her on the intestacy of her
husband or father-in-law, the property devolves first to husbands heirs, then
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 513

to husbands fathers heirs respectively. Thus the intestate succession of Hindu

female property is kept within the fathers or husbands domain.
By retention of Hindu joint family system and introducing daughters as
coparceners, the legislative efforts to usher in gender parity have resulted in
abundant confusion. Under the classical law, a female could not be a
coparcener, but a daughter born in the family was a member of her fathers
joint family. Upon her marriage, she ceased to be a member of the joint
family of her father and she joined the joint family of her husband. The
Supreme Court in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar 41 held that a bride
leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet
memories therewith a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her
grooms house. She leaves behind not only her memories but also her surname,
gotra and maidenhood. Presently, under the amending Act of 2005 a daughter
is made a coparcener in the same manner as that of a son, i.e., irrespective of
her marital status, now she is a member of her fathers coparcenary and
member of the husbands joint family. The anomaly is on two counts: first, a
daughter who has married on the day the amendment came into force would
not be a member of her fathers joint family (as upon marriage a daughter
ceases to be a member of her fathers joint family), but due to the amendment
she would become a member of a narrow institution within the undivided
family, i.e., coparcenary. Second, the retention of the Hindu joint family system
with a superimposition by way of introduction of daughters as coparceners,
without fundamentally altering the basic structure, is perplexing. A daughter
who is born in the family will be a coparcener and a member of the joint
family of her father. She will retain her rights to be coparcener even after her
marriage, and consequently, upon her marriage, she would be a member of
the joint family of her husband. The amendment has created dual membership
jurisprudence whereas this incongruous situation could have been avoided
by a simple abolition of the Hindu joint family system.
A female under Hindu law inherits in a double capacity. She inherits as a
daughter from her parents and also inherits as a daughter-in-law from her
husbands family. As far as the rights of the daughter-in-law are concerned,
she has to be a widowed daughter-in-law. 42 If she remarries before the day

41 AIR 2005 SC 785: (2005) 2 SCC 388.

42 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s.24. Although this section has been deleted by the
amending act of 2005, yet the effect remains the same.
514 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

of opening of the succession she forfeits her rights of succession. If her

husband is alive she is his wife, and the primary right of inheritance is with
him and not with her.
IV Different models of matrimonial property followed
across the world
In the western countries, if the spouses were married without any provision
concerning matrimonial property law, the default statutory system of a limited
community property is applied. 43 In this system, only the property acquired
during the marriage is held in common, although gifts and inheritances
acquired during the marriage are the separate property of each spouse. 44
Community property belongs to both spouses jointly, although each spouse
is able to make ordinary acts of administration of community property.
However, important transactions relating to this kind of property need the
consent of both spouses.45 Importantly, when the record of marriage mentions
that a marital agreement has not been made, third parties may assume that
spouses have been married under the default statutory regime of limited
community property. 46 However, this rule is not applied if the spouses have
declared, in the transaction entered into with a third party, that they had
made a marital agreement. 47
The freedom of contract in the field of marital agreements is very well-
developed in French law, especially when compared to the other European
countries. 48 In their marital agreements, spouses in France may choose one
of the property regimes mentioned by the civil code, but may also modify
the rules of these regimes; spouses may mix different regimes and are even
able to establish new regimes that are not recognised by the law. Finally, in
their marital agreements, spouses may make provisions for a spouses death.
Specifically, they may decide that the surviving spouse be authorised to
receive from the common property either a specified sum, or a specified

43 Carolyn Hamilton & Alison Perry, Family Law in Europe 260 (Butterworths, London,
2002).
44 C. Civ. 1402 (France).
45 C. Civ. 1421 (France).
46 The record of marriage is a certificate given to the spouses and serves as proof that
they are married.
47 C. Civ. 1394 (France).
48 Walter Cairns & Robert McKeon, Intr oduction to French Law 52, 69 (Cavendish
Publishing, London, 1995).
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 515

property in kind, or a specified quantity of a determined kind of property.49

Such a provision does not affect the rights of the surviving spouse under
inheritance law.50 Expenses arising during the marriage may also be allotted
to each spouse by a marital agreement. 51
While European matrimonial property law is codified in each countrys
civil code, the American tradition of freedom of contract provides spouses
with the power to contract around state statutory law on the subject. Americans
are therefore not restricted to the property regimes laid out in statutes, whether
community property or equitable distribution, and may contract around them
subject to few limitations by the court. In fact, spouses may even import into
their agreements any of the European property systems, such as a system of
accruals. Meanwhile, Europeans are often limited to selecting one of the
property regimes statutorily permitted in their countries. Although this permits
them to avoid the statutory default, they must nonetheless select one of the
regimes recognized by law. Only occasionally may spouses alter the rules of
those European systems. Americans therefore enjoy more autonomy in
premarital contracting relative to Europeans. These differing levels of
contractual autonomy have differing consequences.
Further, there are various models of ownership of matrimonial property
have been adopted and implemented in accordance with their societal needs.
However, each model has its own merits and demerits.
Separate ownership of property
In this model, there is separate ownership and administration of property,
irrespective of whether the property was bought before or after the marriage.
The property owned by a spouse is retained by him/her as its sole owner
even after dissolution of the marriage and the other spouse has no right in
that property after dissolution of the marriage.
This system was adopted in England52 to protect the wives whose husbands
got half of her property in accordance with the communal ownership of
property which was followed earlier. Following passing of the Marriage
Womens Property Act, 1882, an individualist approach with respect to

49. C. Civ. 1515 (France).

50. C. Civ. 1516 (France).
51. French Civil Code, 2005, art. 214, when spouses do not regulate this matter, they
shall contribute to the marriage expenses in proportion to their respective means.
52. The Married Womens Property Act, 1882.
516 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

ownership of property was taken in order to benefit the women who, in the
19 th century were at a disadvantage, losing half of their estate to their
husbands. 53 Further, the husband got right to enjoyment, possession, income
and management of his wifes property. 54 Presently, the courts have been
given wide discretion with respect to the division of matrimonial property. 55
The wide ambit of discretion, with respect to the division of matrimonial
property at the time of dissolution of marriage, given to the English courts
produces tailored results for each case. This model assumes that both the
spouses are financially independent and are having equal capability to
accumulate wealth. 56
The spouses share the company of each other but with respect to property,
neither of them can claim a share in the property of the other. This model
promotes individualism which goes against the basic principles of the Hindu
family system. The dependent spouse would have no source of income after
the termination of marriage and this model is to the detriment of such spouse.
This model is thus not suitable to the Indian social scenario, especially, the
Hindu family system.
Community ownership of property
In this model, the property is assumed to be common between the spouses
and both have equal share in the same. This model is based on the assumption
that marriage is a partnership of spouses and both contribute equally to the
common fund through which properties are bought. This assumption holds
even when one of the spouses takes care of the house, which in most cases
is the female. Both spouses are joint and equal owners of the properties
irrespective of the fact that title of the property belongs to one of them.57
Here the contribution of the female partner is given its due importance and
is not neglected as being of no significance. Further, this provides financial
security to the non-working spouse. This model promotes equality between

53. Lucky Ann Buckley, Matrimonial Property and Irish Law: A Case for Community 53
Norther n Ir eland Legal Quar terly 40 (2002).
54. Mary Ann Glendon, Matrimonial Property: A Comparative Study of Law and Social
Change 49 Tulane Law Review 21, 26 (1974-1975).
55. Charman v. Char man (no. 4) [2007] 1 FLR 1246, para 124.
56. Id. at 143.
57. Carolyn J. Frantz, Hanoch Dagan, Properties of Marriage 104 Columbia Law Review
125, 75-133 (2004).
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 517

the spouses and thus several countries like Sweden 58 have implemented this
system to provide financial security and promote equality between the spouses.
In France, community ownership of matrimonial property is followed in
case the parties do not enter into a contract specifying the division of property
in case of termination of their marriage. Three kinds of funds exist in the
French marriages: (a) husbands fund (husbands separate property); (b)
wifes fund (wifes separate property); (c) community fund (collective
property).59 The husbands fund and wifes fund refer to the property owned
by them before the marriage, whereas the community funds include the
property owned by either of them after their marriage. 60 The marriage is
considered to be a contract in which the spouses are given the freedom to
decide the fate of their respective properties and their collective property.
They can mutually decide the financial agreement or the arrangement which
would govern the division of properties at the time of dissolution of the
marriage or death. In case they do not mutually come to a conclusion, then
the legal regime according to article 1400 of the civil code is applicable. The
joint property of the spouses is subjected to the debts and liabilities of the
parties, save in case of fraud by any of the spouses. 61 The joint property
comprises of the properties bought due to their joint or individual efforts
during the subsistence of their marriage.62 The right to manage this property
is held by both of them. Each spouse has full control over his/her separate
property and this property cannot be subjected to the debts of the other
spouse. 63
Thus, this model gives autonomy to both the spouses with respect to
their individual properties, while at the same time they have equal rights
over the joint property. This provides financial security to the dependent
spouse, whose work, though not recognised in economic terms, is
indispensable for the efficient and successful working of the other spouse.
V Model best suited for Indian scenario
India follows the separate ownership model of matrimonial property
distribution. This model does not recognise the contribution of the non-

58. Bradley, Marriage, Family, Property and Inheritance in Swedish Law 39 ICLQ 370,
371-374 (1990).
59. Supra note 53.
60. Supra note 54.
61. Frdrique Ferrand and Bente Braat, National Report: France, Netherlands, Sep. 2008.
62. French Civil Code, art. 1401.
63. Id., art. 1428.
518 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

working spouse, who in most of the cases is the woman. 64 In 2002, the
statistics were dismal as the participation of women in economic activity was
as low as 14.0% and 28.1% in the urban and rural areas respectively. In 2012,
the situation has not changed much. The workforce participation of women
in India is as low as 13.8% in urban areas and 26.1% in rural areas. 65 This
reflects the persisting patriarchal system in the society. Thus, most of the
women in India are homemakers. Since their contribution cannot be measured
in monetary terms, their work is not given the due importance. They are
economically dependent on the male spouses. In the census of 2001, they
were equated with prostitutes, beg gars and prisoners and were qualified as
non-workers. 66 This drew criticism from Supreme Court in Arun Kumar
Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 67 where A.K. Ganguly J opined that
they participate in the production of goods and services but their consumers
are family members, so they do not earn in monetary terms. Due to this, their
work is not valued. The court held that it is unfair and undermines a
homemakers work. The court further questioned the rationale behind equating
the homemakers work with one third of the earning spouses salary. While
G.S. Singhvi J opined: 68
it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the
compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/
mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her
services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee
who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered
by wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated
with the services of an employee, and no evidence or data can
possibly be produced for estimating the value of such services.

64 Barun Kumar Mukhopadhyay and Prasanta Kumar Majumdar, Status of Gender-

Differentials and Trends in India Population, Health, Education and Employment,
available at: www.isical.ac.in/~wemp/Papers/PaperBarunKM&PKM.doc. (last visited
on Oct. 17, 2015).
65. Government of India, 14th Issue Report on Women and Men in India 2012 (National
Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation) xxiii,
available at: http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/women_men_2012_31oct12.pdf
(last visited on Oct. 17, 2015).
66 J. Venkatesan, Assess value of Homemaker Ser vices properly: Court, The Hindu,
July 23, 2010, available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/assess-value-
of-homemaker-services-properly-court/article530178.ece (last visited on Oct. 17, 2015).
67 (2010) 9 SCC 218.
68 Id. at 240.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 519

Community ownership of matrimonial property provides women with

financial security. Further, equal division of matrimonial property promotes a
sense of equality in their relationship and it decreases the tendency of a
spouse to look at the property through the lens of ownership.69 Such practice
leads to domination, which is the reason behind persisting patriarchal society
in India. Women are subjected to physical and mental torture in many parts
of the country. The work of a homemaker is as important as income of the
working members of the family. The gender biasness in society has led to
degradation of position of women in the society as a whole. Such callous
approach towards their work contributes to oppression of women in the
society. 70 Due to their complete financial dependency on the other spouse,
they do not file suit for termination of their marriage as they would be left
homeless without any source of income.
Thus, India should follow the community ownership of matrimonial
property replacing the existing separate ownership of property. This would
help overcome the oppression of women and would empower them. This is
the need of the hour for the Indian society which needs to disentangle itself
from the clutches of the male dominated society.
Disposal of matrimonial property between the spouses
M.B. Shah J of Bombay High Court bench at Goa, commented that the
incidents of atrocities committed on women in Goa are very less as compared
to other states in the country.71 In Goa, personal matrimonial laws, as applied
throughout the country, are not applicable. It follows the Portuguese Civil
Code, 1867 which provides uniform civil code for everyone. According to
this code, registration of marriages is compulsory. Marriage is considered to
be a contract as opposed to a sacrament in Hindu law. The parties are at
liberty to decide mutually how their properties would be divided at the time
of dissolution of their marriage. In case they do not decide, the law of
community property is applicable. According to this code, both the spouses
are joint owners of their properties as a whole. Further, their properties are

69 Carolyn J. Frantz and Hanoch Dagan, Properties of Marriage 104 Columbia Law
Review, 104, 75-133 (2004).
70 Supra note 66.
71 Sandesh Prabhudesai, Judiciary Advocates Uniform Civil Code for India Goa News,
May 23, 1997, available at: http://www.goanews.com/news_disp.php?newsid=581.
(last visited on Oct. 17, 2015).
520 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

divided equally between them at the time of dissolution of their marriage.72

Thus, it provides women with financial resources at the time of termination
of her marriage, as opposed to currently applicable separation of assets
law, according to which wife does not have any right to her husbands
properties.
Taking inspiration from the law applicable in Goa and France, the
matrimonial property in India should be equally divided between the spouses
to promote equality among the spouses and empower the women to stand
on their own feet. Equal share in the matrimonial property provides financial
security to women who devote their life towards taking care of the family
and contributing indirectly towards the development and progress of the
family.
Prenuptial agreement of marriage
The registration of marriage as provided under section 8 of the HMA. The
Supreme Court in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar 73 made registration compulsory
as it would serve as an evidence of marriage and would help the women in
seeking matrimonial remedy. Except some states that have made laws in this
regard, the requirement of registration of marriage is not realised. To achieve
desired result of registration of marriage which has not been fulfilled yet, the
alternative would be prenuptial agreement of marriage. Prenuptial agreements
are ag reements entered by prospective spouses before marriage. These
agreements state the rights and liabilities of a spouse (like all the properties
of both the parties are listed, procedure of divorce in provided, conditions
relating to adoption of child or maintenance are laid down), with the consent
of both the parties. The objectives behind prenuptial agreement are protection
of wealth and assets acquired prior to marriage, protection from debts of
other spouse, protection of family business, continuation of professional
practice, child custody, divorce procedure etc. These type of agreements are
very progressive approach where parties before marriage decide all foreseeable
disputes. Prenuptial agreements are not only for rich people, a normal person
can also enter into it, it is a precautionary step by spouse for financial security
against future uncertain events. As society is changing day by day and spouses
are worried about their career and individuality after marriage, prenuptial

72 Tina M. Thomas, A Uniform Civil Code in India: The Flaws of the Personal Law
System and Goa as a Model for a Common Law 5 Inter national Affairs Journal 12,
7-13 (2009).
73 AIR 2006 SC 1158; (2006) 2 SCC 578.
2015] Matrimonial Property Law in India: Need of the Hour 521

agreement is best option available because; firstly, it is the most economical

solution, considering the divorce cost or any sort of suit relating to maintenance
or adoption etc. through court; secondly, parties are free to include conditions
which are suitable to them with mutual consent; thirdly, it is a more relaxed
procedure than going through the court; and lastly, it keeps a check on
misrepresentation made by either spouse and reduces possibilities of fraud
and hence parties can be protected from such bitter experiences. A properly
drafted prenuptial agreement has binding effect over both parties and is
legally enforceable.
VI Conclusion
At present, there is no law among Hindus which deals with matrimonial
property among the married couples and provides them with an equal share
at the time of dissolution of marriage. Though a legally wedded Hindu wife
is considered to be a class-I heir to her deceased husband, where she gets a
share on her husbands death from his self-acquired property and his share
from the coparcenary property but during the marriage, she has no share in
the property of her husband whether the property is self-acquired or it is an
interest in the coparcenary property. The Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005 has provided daughters coparcenary rights by birth in the family of
their birth but this Act too has not provided them any rights by marriage in
the matrimonial family. It is surprising to understand that woman as daughter
is given equal property rights in the family of her birth where her parents
always give their best for her upbringing and educate her with the best of
their efforts but once she is married, she is not given any property rights
along with her husband in the matrimonial family. If this anomaly is taken
care by the introduction of matrimonial property and if the law is also made
for its equitable distribution among the married spouses, the real object of
women empowerment will be achieved.
The term matrimonial property must be defined in clear and unambiguous
terms so as to remove ambiguity which is currently prevailing in the Indian
legal system. The present provision which vaguely refers to matrimonial
property under section 27 of the HMA must be amended to include the
property received, bought, inherited or any other mode of acquisition during
the marriage irrespective of the fact that either of the two spouses has joint
title and co-ownership to the same.
The prevailing separation of assets principle in the matrimonial home
must be replaced by community ownership of the property as women are
highly affected by financial hardships on termination of marriage. Giving
522 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 57: 4

women right to equal share in the matrimonial property would provide

recognition to the work done by them at home as productive work. Besides,
it would provide them financial, social and legal security. The introduction of
on Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage) Bill, 2012 in
Maharashtra and deliberations on the introduction of the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Bill, 2012 in Parliament are welcome steps towards creation of
a new jurisprudence on matrimonial property in India. In addition, there is
a need to amend section 27 of the HMA to widen the scope of the word
property presented at or about the time of marriage with an attempt to
include the earnings of both the spouses during their marriage and their
inherited properties as well. This property ought to be divided equally between
the parties at the time of divorce, by the court of competent jurisdiction, on
an equitable principle.
At a broader level, developing a suitable law and policy on matrimonial
property in India would clearly require a close examination of the objects
and functions of marriage along with the acknowldgement of the role played
by women in establishing, nurturing and caring for the members of the family
and the socio-economic and legal protection presently accorded to women
in the matrimonial home.