'Country Needs Uniform Civil Code' : Karnataka High Court Urges Union & State Govt To Make UCC

The Karnataka High Court has made a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code, (UCC) to truly achieve the object of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said, “The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”

The Court added, “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.”

Noting that some states (Goa and Uttarakhand) have already enacted laws on Uniform Civil Code, The Court has directed the Registrar General to forward copy of the judgment to the Principal Law Secretaries of both Union of India and State of Karnataka with a hope that the Union of India and State of Karnataka will make endeavour in this regard in enacting the Legislation on Uniform Civil Code achieving object of the Article 44 of the Constitution of India.

The bench emphasised that 'Women' in India are all equal but the Personal Law according to religion makes a difference among the women though they are citizens of India. When under Hindu Law a daughter is given equal status and right in all respects enjoying rights as that of a son, the same is not so under Mahomedan Law.

Thus it said, “Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that our Country needs a 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.”

Distinguishing between the two personal laws, the Court noted that brothers and sisters are equally having status/right/entitlement and interest under Hindu Law. However, the sister under the Mahomedan Law is entitled to share as residuary but not as sharer. The Court observed, “Therefore, this is an example for the necessity of making Law on “Uniform Civil Code”.

The Court noted that the Uniform Civil Code was a contentious issue in the Constituent Assembly. Some of the members of the Constituent Assembly favoured the Uniform Civil Code and some others opposed. It said, “The chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his most illustrious speech has argued in favour of Uniform Civil Code.”

It also observed that prominent leaders like Sardar Vallabhbai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, T Krishnamachari and Maulana Hasrat Mohani had supported the Uniform Civil Code.

Further, it had also referred to Supreme Court judgments in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum and others (1985) 2 SCC 556, Sarla Mudgal (Smt), President, Kalyani and others vs. Union of India and others (1995) 3 SCC 635 and John Vallamattom and another vs. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611, wherein the court suggested the parliament to enact a law on Uniform Civil Code.

Factua Details:

The Court has made the suggestion while deciding the appeals filed by Samiulla Khan and others. The appellants/plaintiffs (brothers and sister) had filed a suit for partition in the property left by their sister Shahnaz Begum by metes and bounds. The appellants challenged the order of the trial court granting share to the respondents.

The trial court had on consideration decreed the suit in part and declared that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 (brothers) are entitled to have 1/10th share each in the suit schedule 'A' property and 1/5th share each in the suit schedule 'B' property. Plaintiff No.3 is entitled to have 1/20th in the suit schedule 'A' property and 1/10th share in the suit schedule 'B' property. The defendant (husband of Shahnaz Begum) is entitled to have 3/4th share in the suit schedule 'A' property and half share in the suit schedule 'B' property.

The appellants had contended that the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Shahnaz Begum. Therefore, in both properties, the plaintiffs are entitled to 50% and the defendant is entitled to 50% share.

The husband of the deceased opposed the appeal submitting that the deceased Shahnaz Begum has not inherited any property from his father. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share. Thus, the suit ought to have been dismissed.

Findings:

The Court noted that the acquisition of suit schedule 'A' property was purchased by defendant when he was in service (before retirement) and suit schedule 'B' property was purchased after retirement of the defendant from service, but admittedly both were purchased in the name of deceased Shahnaz Begum.

Observing that defendant and deceased Shahnaz Begum have purchased the property jointly in the name of deceased Shahnaz Begum, but the suit schedule 'B' property was purchased when the deceased Shahnaz Begum was in service while working as a teacher, but at that time the defendant had attained superannuation.

The Court said “Just because the suit schedule 'B' property was purchased after the retirement of the defendant, that alone cannot be a factor to say that the deceased Shahnaz Begum had acquired the suit schedule 'B' property out of her own earnings.”

It held “Thus, it is joint acquisition of both defendant and deceased Shahnaz - Begum. In this regard, the Trial Court has committed an error that when the deceased Shahnaz Begum purchased the property, at that time the defendant was retired from the service and deceased Shahnaz Begum was in service therefore, it is held that the acquisition of suit schedule 'B' property by self-earnings of deceased Shahnaz Begum is not correct.”

It added “Acquisition of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties is not by self-earnings of deceased Shahnaz Begum alone but joint acquisition by both the defendant and deceased Shahnaz Begum. Thus, plaintiffs are not entitled to 50% of the share in both suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties as per the Law of Inheritance applicable to the plaintiffs and defendant.”

Referring to provisions under the Mahomedan law the court said “The husband and brothers are entitled to share as 'sharers' and plaintiff No.3 being a sister is entitled to share as 'residuary' since plaintiff No.3 has full brothers, who are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, plaintiff No.3 is entitled to a share as residuary.”

Following which it rejected the appeal filed by the brother and sisters and partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant husband and modified the trial court order. It said “Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to have 1/10th share each in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Plaintiff No.3 is entitled to have 1/20th share in suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and the defendant is entitled 3/4th share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by metes and bounds.”

Appearance: Advocate Irshad Ahmed for A1, A3 & LRs

Advocate Mohammed Sayeed for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

Case Title: Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2020 (PAR) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.33 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order