MADHU KISHWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act which confines succession to property to the male line by contending that the provision is discriminatory against women and, therefore, ultra vires the equality clause in the Constitution. Petitioner 1 in the first writ petition is the editor of a magazine while petitioners 2 and 3 are two ladies of the 'ho' tribe, admittedly one of the Scheduled Tribes residing in Singhbhum district of Bihar. The petitioners in the other writ petition belong to the 'oraon' tribe of the Chhota Nagpur area. Challenge is essentially to S. 7 and 8 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act of 1908. S. 7 and 8 of the Act provide:

(2.) Reliance has been placed on a division bench decision of the Patna High court in the case of Jitmohan Singh Munda v. Ramratan Singh in support of the proposition that the Patna High court had more a than 30 years back taken the view that the provision was not operative and a widow was also entitled to inherit. When analysed the judgment of the Patna High court does not seem to provide prop for the argument raised in the writ petitions. In paragraph 4 of the judgment the High court indicated:

(3.) The interpretation given of S. 8 in the division bench decision, therefore, does not provide full support to the point raised before us by the writ petitioners in the two cases. It was a case confined to its own facts and the court proceeded to dispose of the case with reference to the widow by bringing in the concept of Hindu law on the finding thatthe family had adopted Hindu law and was not bound by its own caste custom.