If you are a professional in an emerging industry, like gaming, data science, cloud computing, digital marketing etc., that has promising career opportunities, this is your chance to be featured in #CareerKiPaathshaala. Fill up this form today!
The inheritance battle in the family of late actor Sivaji Ganesan as his daughters are contesting his "will" as fabricated brings to the fore the question of equal rights for daughters.
The property dispute between Sivaji Ganesan’s sons and daughters has been grabbing the headlines for a fortnight now. The case is sub-judice, so I will not give any opinions on it, but this case has brought a stark social reality to the fore.
This case involves disputed property worth 270 crores and the people involved in the dispute come from a famous family, so it has all of the media’s attention and our curiosity. But if you were to pause and look around you, you would find families aplenty where you could see the same story being replicated.
The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was considered a historic event and rightly so. It was a giant stride towards empowering women. However, more than a decade and a half later social reality is starkly different and the struggle for guaranteeing equal rights for women continues.
The Hindu Succession Act, of 1956 gave women the right to complete ownership over the property they possessed.
Before this legislation came into force women only had the absolute right over any property that had been gifted to them by their husbands, parents, or family members. This property was known as Saudayika property.
Any property that they received from non-relatives was termed as Non-Saudayika property and they needed their husband’s consent for disposing of the same. Also any property that a woman did not have the right to dispose off of any property inherited through her relatives, and such property would pass on to her legal heirs after her death..
Thus, the Hindu Succession Act was a major reform – it gave women complete ownership to women over the property they possessed irrespective of the means of how they had come to own the property. It also removed the restrictions and obligations of seeking the husband’s consent for selling their property.
But the Legislation did not grant women the right to an equal share in ancestral property, or if the parent died without making a will about self-earned property – it would then go to the male heir. This was a limitation that strengthened the social bias against daughters and the obsession with the “Ghar ka Chirag.”
The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was a major reform aimed at making the act gender equal.
This amendment ensured that daughters had an equal right, same as sons, to inherit ancestral property, and have the same rights and liabilities in such property as the sons.
The amendment also ensured that women could become a Karta of the family, demand an equal share in the partition of ancestral property, and also add their self-acquired property to the joint family property.
These rights were granted to women irrespective of their being married or unmarried.
The Supreme Court of India in 2020 held that the amendment would be effective retroactively, i.e., a daughter would be given a share in the coparcenary property even if the father had died before 2005.
A few years ago, a colleague at my then workplace filed a case against her brothers, seeking a share in the family property.
I remember the conversation between other women at the office who were shocked and appalled at her decision. Their reaction seemed strange to me; why were they so worked up about someone exercising their right?
One of the women exclaimed “Is money more important than your brothers? She might win the case, and get a share in the property, but her relationship with her brothers will be finished. Is money more important than family?”
I was left wondering why are women even expected her to make this choice.
The one reasoning instantly given is that “a daughter gets a lot at her wedding from her parents, so she should stop being greedy and try usurping her brothers’ property.”
This is a completely flawed explanation.
Even to this day in most homes, sons are provided with far more opportunities than daughters when it comes to education or equipping themselves professionally. The end goal for the daughter remains marriage and whether or not it’s a happy marriage they are forced to continue with it.
In such a case why should a daughter refrain from seeking a share in the property? If she was “given a lot” in the form of gifts at her wedding, so does a brother get a lot in the form of opportunities, educational expenses, and business capital. Then why are daughters expected to refrain from seeking their shares, or termed selfish and greedy for seeking their rightful share in their family property?
Girls from a young age in our society are taught to be ideal, adjust, and always ready to place everyone before them. All of these expectations are dumped on the heads of women, and even celebrated as ‘great symbols of womanhood’. The result is women feeling guilt in raising their voices or seeking their rights.
It’s time to raise our voices. Be equally responsible for your parents as your male sibling, no, you don’t need anybody’s permission for that. Be strong and clear and voice your right. Remember a woman seeking her rights is not taking anyone else’s away.
The case initiated by Sivaji Ganesan’s daughters is just not about the huge sums involved, it is also about women voicing their rights, and seeking what is rightfully theirs.
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views. Individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times. If you have a complementary or differing point of view, sign up and start sharing your views too!
A dreamer by passion and an Advocate by profession. Mother to an ever energetic and curious little princess. I long to see the day when Gender equality is a reality in the world. read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
People have relationships without marriages. People cheat. People break up all the time. Just because two people followed some rituals does not make them more adept at tolerating each other for life.
Why is that our society defines a woman’s success by her marital status? Is it an achievement to get married or remain married? Is it anybody’s business? Are people’s lives so hollow that they need someone’s broken marriage to feel good about themselves?
A couple of months ago, I came across an article titled, “Shweta Tiwari married for the third time.” When I read through it, the article went on to clarify that the picture making news was one her one of her shows, in which she is all set to marry her co-star. She is not getting married in real life.
Fair enough. But why did the publication use such a clickbait title that was so misleading? I guess the thought of a woman marrying thrice made an exciting news for them and their potential readers who might click through.
Did the creators of Masaba Masaba just wake up one morning, go to the sets and decide to create something absolutely random without putting any thought into it?
Anyone who knows about Neena Gupta’s backstory would say that she is a boss lady, a badass woman, and the very definition of a feminist. I would agree with them all.
However, after all these decades of her working in the Indian film industry, is her boldness and bravery the only things worth appreciating?
The second season of Masaba Masaba (2020-2022) made me feel as if both Neena Gupta and her daughter Masaba have gotten typecast when it comes to the roles they play on screen. What’s more is that the directors who cast them have stopped putting in any effort to challenge the actors, or to make them deliver their dialogues differently.