Question

Consider the given statements:
(i) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the court shall not recognise any pious obligation of a son under the Hindu law to discharge any debt due from his father.
(ii) Right of creditor to proceed against a son to recover any debt due from his father solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law shall not be affected if the debt was contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Choose the correct answer from the options given below.

• A. Both (i) and (ii) are true
• B. Both (i) and (ii) are untrue
• C. (i) true and (ii) untrue
• D. (ii) true and (i) untrue

Hint:

Section 6(4) HSA (2005) abolishes pious obligation prospectively but saves creditors’ rights for pre-2005 debts.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Effect of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 inserted Section 6(4), which provides that after the commencement of the Amendment, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son on the basis of the pious obligation under Hindu law. Therefore, statement (i) is correct.
Step 2: Protection of pre-amendment debts.
The proviso to Section 6(4) expressly saves the rights of creditors in respect of debts contracted before the commencement of the 2005 Amendment. Hence, the right of a creditor to proceed against a son on the basis of pious obligation is not affected in respect of such pre-amendment debts. Therefore, statement (ii) is also correct.
Step 3: Harmonious reading of the provision.
While the doctrine of pious obligation has been abolished prospectively, the legislature has consciously preserved creditors’ rights relating to debts incurred prior to the amendment.
Step 4: Conclusion.
Both statements (i) and (ii) correctly reflect the statutory position. Hence, option (A) is the correct answer.