30 Feminist Judgments Of 2020

Orders Defending Women Rights 1. Daughters Have Coparcenary Rights Even If Their Father Was Not Alive When Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Came Into Force: SC The Supreme Court held that a daughter will have a share after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of the amendment. A bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah pronounced the judgment in a batch of appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect. "Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not", the Bench said while overruling the contrary observations made in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. TB Raju. Also Read: Injustice To Daughters In Hindu Shastric Law Done Away With: SC Explains The Impact Of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 [Read Judgment] [Case: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma] 2. 'Absolute Exclusion Of Women From Command Appointments In Army Illegal': SC Dismisses Centre's Appeals Against Delhi HC Verdict In a significant judgment on gender equality, the Supreme Court directed that Permanent Commission should be granted to women in the army regardless of their service, in all the ten streams where the Union Government has already taken a decision to grant Short Service Commission to women. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi also held that absolute exclusion of women from command assignments is against Article 14 of the Constitution and unjustified. Therefore, the policy that women will be given only "staff appointments" was held to be unenforceable by the Court. Later in March, in another judgment, the court held that women officers in Navy are also entitled to Permanent Commission at par with men (Union of India v Lt Cdr Annie Nagaraja). Also Read: Notion That Women Are 'Weaker Sex' Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset Also Read: Women In Army: How SC Rejected Centre's Arguments Based On 'Sex Stereotypes'? [Case: Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.] 3. [Domestic Violence Act] Wife Entitled To Claim Right Of Residence Which Belongs To Relatives Of Husband Also: Supreme Court Overrules Its 2006 'SR Batra' Judgment A wife is also entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband, the Supreme Court held in an important judgment overruling the 2006 judgment in SR Batra v. Taruna Batra. "In the event, shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household," the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah. It added, "The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act." [Case: Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja] 4. Summary Eviction Procedure Under Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked To Defeat Right Of Residence Of Woman In A Shared Household As Per DV Act: Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act has no overriding effect over the right of residence of a woman in a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed in this case "Allowing the Senior Citizens Act 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. The law...

30 Feminist Judgments Of 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags