Gupta Manu v. Sharma & Ors. The Delhi High Court recently ruled in this case that a woman’s right to be the Karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is unaffected by either the legislature or customary Hindu law. The only thing standing in the way of a woman becoming the Karta in today’s society, according to the division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, is a family’s unwillingness to embrace social and cultural change.

“Societal perceptions cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the legislature,” the Court underscored.

In the case of DR Gupta and his sons, the court was considering an appeal against a ruling designating a woman as the Karta of a HUF. Following the demise of DR Gupta’s sons, the question of the family’s Karta emerged. Being the eldest of DR Gupta’s grandchildren, Sujata Sharma declared herself to be the HUF’s future Karta. The male members of her family challenged her, and Manu Gupta declared himself the Karta in her place.

The Hindu Succession Act was modified in 2005 to grant Hindu men and women equal inheritance rights, the Court stated in its decision dated December 4. The issue of whether a woman who is recognized as a coparcener can eventually become a Karta and take over the management of the family estate was then discussed.

The Court came to the conclusion that the only requirements for becoming a Karta are age seniority and coparcener status. Although there was no explicit prohibition in the traditional law against women holding managerial positions, it was observed that being the “senior most male” was a necessary corollary, since only male members of the Joint Hindu Family were granted the status of coparcener.

A daughter of a coparcener “shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son” and “any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara Coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener,” according to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, according to the Court.

In light of this, the Court declared that even though the Preamble of the Act mentions inheritance, all other rights, including the right to be a Karta, would also be conferred as “same” rights. The Court dismissed the claim that a female Karta’s husband would have some indirect influence over the operations of her father’s family’s HUF. It called it a parochial mindset.

“Ergo, a woman who has absolute ownership of a property cannot be denied a right to manage it on the warped reasoning that she may get influenced by her in-laws. Thus, societal apprehension and reluctance can never truncate legislative enactments to do away with patriarchal discrimination,” the bench said. Thus, the Court declared Sujata Sharma as the Karta for the purposes of representing the HUF of DR Gupta & Sons before the Competent Authority. It thus dismissed the appeal.