Skip to main content

A Hindu girl who converts her religion can still claim share in father’s property

The Gujarat High Court in a landmark judgment stated that even though a woman has converted to another religion after marriage she is nevertheless entitled to inherit her father’s ancestral property as per the Hindu Succession Act.

Justice JB Pardiwala, in a matter where a Hindu woman converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim man and renounced Hindu faith, does not disqualify her to inherit father’s property.

As per the Hindu Succession Act, if a person has converted then it does not disqualify her from claiming her share in the ancestral property. The Act only disqualifies the descendants of the convert who are born to the convert after such conversion from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives.

In the present matter, the state revenue authorities were of the opinion that since she has renounced her religion voluntary and hence does not have any right to share in father’s property.

Nasimbanu Friozkhan Pathan from Vadodara renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam on July 11, 1990. Subsequently, she married Firoz Khan on January 25, 1991, as per the Muslim rituals.

In 2004, her father passed away leaving behind sizeable parcels in land in their village. However, her siblings opposed her claims and refused to enter her name in the list of claimants as she is no longer a Hindu.

The court explained as she voluntarily embraced Islam, the provisions of inheritance laws cannot be enforced in her case. After hearing the matter, Justice Pardiwala explained the applicability of provisions existing in Hindu Shastric laws for disqualification of Hindu women for succession or maintenance were kept aside.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...