Introduction to...

Personal laws are in the [x] List, they may differ from State to State. The framers of the Constitution did not intend total uniformity or one law for the whole country. Not all Hindus in the country are governed by one law. Marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of $$1955$$ but are considered auspicious in the south. The Hindu Code Bill recognizes the customs of different Hindu communities. Even the Hindu Succession Act of the year [y] made several compromises and could not make daughters a coparcener till $$2005$$. Wives are still not coparceners. Even today, the property devolves first to Class I heirs and if there are no Class I heirs, then to Class II heirs. While heirs of sons are Class I heirs, those of daughters are not. Even among Class II heirs, preference is given to the male line. If a couple does not have a child, the property of not only the husband but also of the wife goes to the husband’s parents.
In fact, let’s leave aside discriminatory personal laws; even land laws enacted after $$1950$$ in a number of States are gender unjust. These laws have been exempted from judicial scrutiny and have been included in the [y] Schedule.

Personal laws are in the [x] List, they may differ from State to State. The framers of the Constitution did not intend total uniformity or one law for the whole country. Not all Hindus in the country are governed by one law. Marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of $$1955$$ but are considered auspicious in the south. The Hindu Code Bill recognizes the customs of different Hindu communities. Even the Hindu Succession Act of the year [y] made several compromises and could not make daughters a coparcener till $$2005$$. Wives are still not coparceners. Even today, the property devolves first to Class I heirs and if there are no Class I heirs, then to Class II heirs. While heirs of sons are Class I heirs, those of daughters are not. Even among Class II heirs, preference is given to the male line. If a couple does not have a child, the property of not only the husband but also of the wife goes to the husband’s parents.
In fact, let’s leave aside discriminatory personal laws; even land laws enacted after $$1950$$ in a number of States are gender unjust. These laws have been exempted from judicial scrutiny and have been included in the [y] Schedule.

Personal laws are in the [x] List, they may differ from State to State. The framers of the Constitution did not intend total uniformity or one law for the whole country. Not all Hindus in the country are governed by one law. Marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of $$1955$$ but are considered auspicious in the south. The Hindu Code Bill recognizes the customs of different Hindu communities. Even the Hindu Succession Act of the year [y] made several compromises and could not make daughters a coparcener till $$2005$$. Wives are still not coparceners. Even today, the property devolves first to Class I heirs and if there are no Class I heirs, then to Class II heirs. While heirs of sons are Class I heirs, those of daughters are not. Even among Class II heirs, preference is given to the male line. If a couple does not have a child, the property of not only the husband but also of the wife goes to the husband’s parents.
In fact, let’s leave aside discriminatory personal laws; even land laws enacted after $$1950$$ in a number of States are gender unjust. These laws have been exempted from judicial scrutiny and have been included in the [y] Schedule.

Personal laws are in the [x] List, they may differ from State to State. The framers of the Constitution did not intend total uniformity or one law for the whole country. Not all Hindus in the country are governed by one law. Marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of $$1955$$ but are considered auspicious in the south. The Hindu Code Bill recognizes the customs of different Hindu communities. Even the Hindu Succession Act of the year [y] made several compromises and could not make daughters a coparcener till $$2005$$. Wives are still not coparceners. Even today, the property devolves first to Class I heirs and if there are no Class I heirs, then to Class II heirs. While heirs of sons are Class I heirs, those of daughters are not. Even among Class II heirs, preference is given to the male line. If a couple does not have a child, the property of not only the husband but also of the wife goes to the husband’s parents.
In fact, let’s leave aside discriminatory personal laws; even land laws enacted after $$1950$$ in a number of States are gender unjust. These laws have been exempted from judicial scrutiny and have been included in the [y] Schedule.

Personal laws are in the [x] List, they may differ from State to State. The framers of the Constitution did not intend total uniformity or one law for the whole country. Not all Hindus in the country are governed by one law. Marriages amongst close relatives are prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act of $$1955$$ but are considered auspicious in the south. The Hindu Code Bill recognizes the customs of different Hindu communities. Even the Hindu Succession Act of the year [y] made several compromises and could not make daughters a coparcener till $$2005$$. Wives are still not coparceners. Even today, the property devolves first to Class I heirs and if there are no Class I heirs, then to Class II heirs. While heirs of sons are Class I heirs, those of daughters are not. Even among Class II heirs, preference is given to the male line. If a couple does not have a child, the property of not only the husband but also of the wife goes to the husband’s parents.
In fact, let’s leave aside discriminatory personal laws; even land laws enacted after $$1950$$ in a number of States are gender unjust. These laws have been exempted from judicial scrutiny and have been included in the [y] Schedule.