Karnataka High Court calls upon Parliament, States to enact Uniform Civil Code

The Karnataka High Court on Friday urged the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every effort to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) emphasizing that such legislation is essential to fully realize the ideals outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India..A single-judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed that enacting and enforcing a UCC would ensure justice for women, promote equality across castes and religions, and uphold individual dignity through fraternity.The Court noted that all women in India are equal as citizens under the Constitution. However, it noted that personal laws, which vary according to religion, create distinctions among women, resulting in differential treatment despite their equal status as Indian citizens."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 said..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.Karnataka High Court.The Court added that under Hindu law, a daughter has equal birthrights and status as a son, and a wife enjoys equal status with her husband. However, such equality is not reflected under Mahomedan law, the judge opined. Therefore, the Court emphasized the need for a UCC to ensure equality across personal laws, to fulfil the constitutional mandate of equality before law."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," the judgment reads..The Court made the observation while dealing with a property dispute among the legal heirs of one Abdul Basheer Khan, who passed away intestate, leaving behind a number of immovable properties, some of which were ancestral and some self-acquired.After his death, disagreements arose among his children regarding the division of these properties. One of the heirs, Shahnaz Begum - who was represented by her husband Sirajuddin Macci (a respondent) following her death - alleged that she was unlawfully excluded from the partition and was not granted a rightful share in the estate..To seek redressal, Sirajuddin filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the properties before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. The trial court in November 2019, held that three of the properties in question formed part of the joint family estate and held that Shahnaz Begum, through her legal representative, was entitled to a 1/5th share in those specific properties. However, the trial court did not extend the relief to other properties.Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, Bashir Ahmad's two sons, namely Samiulla Khan and Noorulla Khan, and his daughter, Rahath Jan (appellants), filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court. Simultaneously, Sirajuddin filed a cross-objection against the same trial court judgment, seeking the enhancement of his share or a modification of the earlier order.The High Court heard both the appeal and the cross-objection plea together. .The Court eventually upheld the trial court's finding that the three properties identified were indeed joint family properties and confirmed the entitlement of Shahnaz Begum’s legal representative to her 1/5th share in them.The appellants' contention that the properties were not ancestral property was rejected, with the Court affirming that the evidence sufficiently established the joint family nature of these assets.However, the High Court did not find merit in the cross-objection raised by Sirajuddin. It held that the additional properties claimed to be joint family in nature had not been sufficiently proven as such. Consequently, the Court declined to expand the trial court decree to include those properties and dismissed the cross-objection..Advocate Irshad Ahmed represented the appellants, while Advocate Mohamed Sayeed appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgement]