In a significant observation with far-reaching implications, the Karnataka High Court has identified a critical legal loophole in the Hindu Succession Act. The court has formally advised the Central Government to amend the law to safeguard the inheritance rights of widows and mothers, which it says were inadvertently compromised by a 2005 amendment.
The 'Inadvertent Gap' in the Amended Law
The bench of Justices R Devdas and B Muralidhara Pai was adjudicating a property dispute plea filed by a widow and her three children. The case revolved around the partition of ancestral property following the death of the man in 2008. While modifying a 2021 trial court order, the judges felt compelled to highlight a legislative oversight.
The court pointed out that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, no longer explicitly references Class-I heirs listed in the Schedule. This class crucially includes the widow and mother of a deceased person.
"The un-amended Section 6, more particularly the first proviso, by reference to class-I heirs of the Schedule, ensured a share at a notional partition to a widow and mother of the deceased, along with son, daughter. However, the amended Section 6 does not contain a reference to class-I heirs of the schedule," the bench stated in its order dated December 25, 2025.
Court's Directive to the Law Ministry
Emphasizing its duty to the legislature, the court clarified that the lawmakers' intent, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark Vineeta Sharma case, was never to strip widows and mothers of their existing rights. The omission, the bench concluded, was a result of "sheer inadvertence."
To prevent future confusion and litigation, the court strongly suggested a recasting of the provision to explicitly include Class-I heirs. It directed its registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs in New Delhi. This move is intended to prompt the government to consider the court's observations for necessary legislative action.
Background of the Property Dispute
The case that brought this issue to light involves a complex family conflict. The petitioners, including the alleged second wife and three children of the deceased man, challenged a trial court's partition order. The dispute also involved the man's first wife, who had executed sale deeds in favor of her brother.
The petitioners sought a declaration of their full ownership over the scheduled properties and wanted the sale deeds by the first wife declared void. They claimed that each party, including the first wife, was entitled to a one-fifth share in the ancestral properties, with both women asserting their status as the legally wedded wife.
This judicial intervention underscores the ongoing need to refine personal laws to ensure they align with the principles of gender justice and leave no room for interpretive ambiguity that could disenfranchise vulnerable family members.
