The 2005 Amendment — What Actually Changed — Hindu Law (Family Law I) Notes

Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005

In Prakash v. Phulavati (2015), the Supreme Court initially held that only living daughters on 9 September 2005 could claim coparcenary rights — a position that denied rights to daughters of fathers who had died before 2005. But in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), a three-judge bench overruled this and held daughters are coparceners by birth — the 2005 Amendment created a right that existed from birth, not from the amendment date.

Salient Features of the 2005 Amendment

1. Daughters as Coparceners (Section 6 substituted):

• A daughter of a coparcener is now a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son.
• She has the same rights and liabilities as a son in coparcenary property.
• She can demand partition and dispose of her share by Will.

2. Abolition of pious obligation (Section 6(4)):

• No court shall recognise a son’s/grandson’s/great-grandson’s pious obligation to pay the debts of father/grandfather/great-grandfather for debts contracted after 20 December 2004.

3. Amendment of Section 23 (removed):

• The original S.23 prohibited a female heir from claiming partition of a dwelling house if male heirs lived in it. This discriminatory provision has been removed.

4. Amendment of Section 24 (removed):

• A widow who remarried was disqualified from inheriting her deceased husband’s property. This provision has been removed.

5. Widows of predeceased sons, predeceased grandsons: Retain their inheritance rights even if they remarry after the Hindu male’s death.

Section 6(1), HSA (after 2005 Amendment): “In a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall — (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.”

flowchart TD
    ROOT["2005 Amendment — Key Changes"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Daughters = Coparceners<br/>by birth (S.6 substituted)"]:::change
    ROOT --> B["Pious obligation abolished<br/>for post-2004 debts (S.6-4)"]:::change
    ROOT --> C["S.23 removed<br/>(Dwelling house restriction<br/>on female heirs — gone)"]:::change
    ROOT --> D["S.24 removed<br/>(Remarriage disqualification<br/>of widows — gone)"]:::change
    ROOT --> E["Vineeta Sharma 2020:<br/>Rights from birth,<br/>not from 2005"]:::case

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef change fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef case fill:#FFFFF0,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) — Daughters are coparceners by birth; Prakash v. Phulavati overruled.
• Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) — Supreme Court: daughter’s right as coparcener does not depend on the father being alive on 9 September 2005 (partly overruled by Vineeta Sharma on points of reasoning, though its result was broadly consistent).

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Hindu Law topics