Question

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005,

• A. Allows daughters of the deceased equal rights with daughter
• B. Allows sons of the deceased equal rights with widows
• C. Allows daughters of the deceased equal rights with wife
• D. Allows daughters of the deceased equal rights with sons

Hint:

Remember the core purpose of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act: to make daughters coparceners by birth, granting them equal rights and liabilities in ancestral property as sons. This is a crucial step towards gender equality in property law. Also, be aware of the Supreme Court's judgment in \textit{Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)}, which clarified that a daughter's right flows from her birth and is not dependent on her father being alive on the date the amendment came into force.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was a landmark piece of legislation that aimed to remove gender discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly concerning rights in ancestral property (coparcenary property).
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Before the 2005 amendment, under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, only male descendants (sons, grandsons, great-grandsons) were coparceners by birth and had a right in the ancestral property. Daughters were not coparceners and were only entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, primarily amended Section 6 of the original Act. The key changes were:
- It made a daughter of a coparcener also a coparcener in her own right by birth.
- It conferred upon the daughter the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.
- It also made her subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.
In essence, the amendment put daughters on an equal footing with sons regarding rights in ancestral property. Therefore, it allows daughters of the deceased equal rights with sons. The other options are either nonsensical (A) or incorrect representations of the law (B, C).