The Karnataka High Court urged Parliament and State legislatures to bring in a Uniform Civil Code. The Court stated that such a code would uphold justice for women and promote equality across all castes and religions. It emphasized the importance of individual dignity and fraternity. The suggestion aims to foster a more unified and fair legal framework for all citizens.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court encouraged Parliament and State Legislatures to take all necessary steps to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), highlighting that such legislation is crucial for realizing the ideals set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, presiding over a single-judge bench, remarked that the implementation of a UCC would provide justice for women, promote equality across different castes and religions, and uphold individual dignity through fraternity.
Also Read: Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code | Only One Live-In Relationship Registered in 10 Days
The Court noted that all women in India are recognized as equals under the Constitution. However, it pointed out that personal laws, which differ by religion, create disparities among women, leading to unequal treatment despite their equal status as citizens.
The Court stated,
“The Court is of the opinion that bringing a law on Uniform Civil Code and its enforcement certainly give justice to women, achieve equality of status and opportunity for all and accelerate the dream of equality among all women in India irrespective of caste and religion and also assure dignity individually through fraternity. Therefore, the enactment of a law on Uniform Civil Code will truly achieve the objects of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that it should make a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code,”
The Court further explained that under Hindu law, daughters have equal birth-rights and status as sons, and wives enjoy equal standing with their husbands. However, this equality is not mirrored in Mahomedan law, according to the judge.
Thus, the Court stressed the necessity of a UCC to ensure uniformity in personal laws, fulfilling the constitutional mandate of equality before the law.
The judgment reads,
“A ‘Woman’ in Hindu Law is having birth right equal to that of Son being a Daughter. When under Hindu Law a daughter is given equal status and right in all respects enjoying rights as that of son, the same is not so under Mahomedan Law. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that our Country needs Uniform Civil Code in respect of their Personal Laws and Religion, only then the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be achieved. A ‘Daughter’ under Hindu Law is having equal status/right/entitlement and interest as that of Son and in case of wife she is having equal status as that of husband, this is more or like fulfilling object and principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but it is not so under the Mahomedan Law,”
This observation arose while the Court was addressing a property dispute involving the heirs of Abdul Basheer Khan, who died without a will, leaving behind various immovable properties, both ancestral and self-acquired.
Following his death, conflicts emerged among his children regarding the distribution of these assets. One heir, Shahnaz Begum, represented by her husband Sirajuddin Macci (a respondent) after her passing, claimed she was unjustly excluded from the partition and denied her rightful share.
To seek redress, Sirajuddin filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the properties before the City Civil Court in Bengaluru. In November 2019, the trial court determined that three of the properties were part of the joint family estate and granted Shahnaz Begum, through her legal representative, a 1/5th share in those properties.
However, the court did not extend this relief to the other properties.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, Bashir Ahmad’s two sons, Samiulla Khan and Noorulla Khan, along with his daughter Rahath Jan (the appellants), appealed to the Karnataka High Court.
Simultaneously, Sirajuddin filed a cross-objection against the trial court’s judgment, seeking an increase in his share or a modification of the earlier ruling.
The High Court examined both the appeal and the cross-objection together.
Also Read: Uttarakhand High Court Questions State on Possible Changes in Uniform Civil Code
Ultimately, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the three designated properties were indeed joint family assets and confirmed Shahnaz Begum’s legal representative’s entitlement to her 1/5th share.
The Court dismissed the appellants’ argument that the properties were not ancestral, affirming that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated their joint family nature.
However, the High Court found no merit in Sirajuddin’s cross-objection, stating that the additional properties claimed as joint family assets had not been adequately substantiated. Consequently, the Court declined to expand the trial court’s decree to include those properties and dismissed the cross-objection.
Advocate Irshad Ahmed represented the appellants, while Advocate Mohamed Sayeed appeared for the respondent.