Landmark Ruling: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Gender Equality in Property Rights
In a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional principles of gender equality, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down a 40-year-old customary law restriction that curtailed a widow's right to sell her husband's property. The court declared that the Riwaj-i-Am of Gurgaon district, which limited a widow's interest to life and required consent from her husband's relatives for property alienation, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Constitutional Mandate Prevails Over Customary Law
Justice Virinder Aggarwal, while hearing a plea challenging trial court orders in a 44-year-old case, emphasized that any limitation founded solely upon gender or marital status violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court adopted a progressive and constitutionally aligned approach, stating that customary restrictions on women's property rights are inherently discriminatory when based exclusively on gender.
The legal position now stands crystallized beyond ambiguity that any custom seeking to curtail, dilute, or abrogate the proprietary rights of females based on religion, gender, or sex-based classification is constitutionally impermissible. The court unequivocally held that such restrictions cannot withstand the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 15.
Case Background: A 44-Year Legal Battle
The case originated in 1982 when collateral relatives of a deceased man from the Meo community challenged a registered sale deed executed by his widow. The relatives argued that under Meo customary law, the widow held only a life interest and could not alienate property without their consent, regardless of whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired.
- The trial court and first appellate court had originally decreed the suit in favor of the collateral relatives
- Both courts relied on the Riwaj-i-Am of Gurgaon district that stipulated a widow's limited interest
- An earlier litigation had conclusively determined the suit land was non-ancestral in nature
- The widow died in 1984 during proceedings, with her daughter continuing the legal battle
Progressive Judicial Approach
The High Court emphasized that once property is determined to be non-ancestral, and a sale is shown to be for a legally recognized necessity of the owner, the transaction cannot be declared void merely for want of collateral consent. This represents a significant shift from traditional interpretations of customary law toward constitutional principles of equality and individual rights.
The court's ruling establishes important precedents for similar cases across India where customary laws conflict with constitutional guarantees of gender equality. By setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts that had upheld the customary restriction, the High Court has reinforced the supremacy of constitutional values over traditional practices that discriminate based on gender.
This judgment comes as part of a broader judicial trend toward examining customary restrictions on women's rights through a constitutional lens, ensuring that progressive interpretations align with India's commitment to gender equality and individual liberty.
