Bengaluru, Apr 5 (UNI) The Karnataka High Court on Saturday made a fervent appeal to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every effort to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), stressing that such legislation is essential to fully realise the ideals outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, presiding over a single-judge bench, underscored that the implementation of a UCC would deliver justice to women, promote equality across communities, and uphold individual dignity through the principle of fraternity.
Observing the existing disparities in personal laws across religions, the Court noted that while the Constitution recognises all women as equal citizens, the current system permits differential treatment under religion-based personal laws. This, the Court said, undermines the ideal of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
"The Court is of the opinion that bringing a law on Uniform Civil Code and its enforcement certainly gives justice to women, achieves equality of status and opportunity for all, and accelerates the dream of equality among all women in India irrespective of caste and religion, and also assures dignity individually through fraternity," the judge remarked in the order.
Citing differences between Hindu and Mahomedan personal laws, the Court highlighted that daughters and wives under Hindu law enjoy equal status with sons and husbands respectively — a parity not reflected under Mahomedan law. The judge opined that a UCC is necessary to address such inequalities.
"A daughter under Hindu law has an equal birthright as that of a son, and a wife enjoys equal status with her husband. But under Mahomedan law, this equality is not provided for. Hence, to achieve the object of Article 14, the country needs a Uniform Civil Code in respect of personal laws and religion," the judgment stated.
The observations were made while adjudicating a property dispute among the legal heirs of Abdul Basheer Khan, who died intestate leaving behind several immovable properties, both ancestral and self-acquired.
Following his death, his children were embroiled in a dispute over the division of these assets. Shahnaz Begum, one of the heirs, was allegedly denied her rightful share. Her legal representative, husband Sirajuddin Macci, approached the City Civil Court in Bengaluru seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the properties.
In November 2019, the trial court ruled that three of the properties were part of the joint family estate and entitled Shahnaz Begum’s representative to a 1/5th share. However, other properties were excluded from the relief.
Challenging this verdict, Khan’s sons Samiulla and Noorulla Khan, and daughter Rahath Jan filed an appeal before the High Court. Simultaneously, Sirajuddin filed a cross-objection seeking a larger share.
The High Court upheld the trial court’s conclusion regarding the three joint family properties and reaffirmed the 1/5th share to Shahnaz Begum’s representative. It, however, dismissed the cross-objection, stating that the evidence failed to establish the joint family nature of the additional properties claimed.
Advocate Irshad Ahmed appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Mohamed Sayeed represented the respondent.
UNI BDN SS