The Discrimination and Anomaly in the Property Rights of Indian Women

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW Statute Law Review Pub Date : 2024-01-20 DOI:10.1093/slr/hmae002
Aditya Suswaram
{"title":"The Discrimination and Anomaly in the Property Rights of Indian Women","authors":"Aditya Suswaram","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The proviso of section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, is a regressive law restraining women of certain religions from alienating property received from an inter-vivos transaction. This paper highlights this aspect of the statute and calls for reform in the property rights of such women, as the proviso violates the Indian Constitutional guarantee of preventing gender and religion-based discrimination. Further, the proviso creates an anomaly in the property interest of women who fall within the ambit of both section 10 and the Indian Succession Act. This paper also argues that the mere deletion of the impugned proviso will not address the issue of patriarchy and secure the welfare of women. Dowry is one such example discussed in this paper, which persists despite statutes aimed at eradicating it. The reasons for the existence of section 10, as given by the English Judges of the colonial past, continue to plague Indian women even today. On the contrary, a woman’s absolute interest in property would make her susceptible to dowry abuse, consequently perpetuating the practice of dowry demands. Therefore, in addition to legal reform, this paper advocates increasing efforts in sensitizing society to bring about real change.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmae002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The proviso of section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, is a regressive law restraining women of certain religions from alienating property received from an inter-vivos transaction. This paper highlights this aspect of the statute and calls for reform in the property rights of such women, as the proviso violates the Indian Constitutional guarantee of preventing gender and religion-based discrimination. Further, the proviso creates an anomaly in the property interest of women who fall within the ambit of both section 10 and the Indian Succession Act. This paper also argues that the mere deletion of the impugned proviso will not address the issue of patriarchy and secure the welfare of women. Dowry is one such example discussed in this paper, which persists despite statutes aimed at eradicating it. The reasons for the existence of section 10, as given by the English Judges of the colonial past, continue to plague Indian women even today. On the contrary, a woman’s absolute interest in property would make her susceptible to dowry abuse, consequently perpetuating the practice of dowry demands. Therefore, in addition to legal reform, this paper advocates increasing efforts in sensitizing society to bring about real change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度妇女财产权方面的歧视和不正常现象
1882 年《财产转让法》第 10 条但书是一项倒退性法律,限制信奉某些宗教的妇女转让从生前交易中获得的财产。本文强调了该法规的这一方面,并呼吁对这些妇女的财产权进行改革,因为该但书违反了印度宪法关于防止基于性别和宗教的歧视的保障。此外,该但书对属于第 10 条和《印度继承法》范围内的妇女的财产利益造成了异常。本文还认为,仅仅删除受质疑的但书并不能解决父权制问题和保障妇女的福利。本文讨论的一个例子是嫁妆问题,尽管有旨在消除嫁妆问题的法规,但嫁妆问题依然存在。殖民地时期英国法官提出的第 10 条存在的理由至今仍困扰着印度妇女。相反,妇女对财产的绝对权益会使其容易受到嫁妆虐待,从而使索要嫁妆的做法长期存在。因此,除法律改革外,本文还主张加大对社会的宣传力度,以实现真正的变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Criminal Law Bills: An In-Depth Critical Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Bill Four Years of Anti-COVID-19 Regulations in Greece: Overview of the Legislative and Regulatory Process and of an Exemplary Administrative Codification Two Uses of Purpose in Statutory Interpretation Climate Volatility, Foundational Freedoms, and the Environment Act 2021: The Transformative Potential of the Principle of Legality Protection of Athletes’ Rights in International Sports Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1