REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Manu Gupta Appellant

V/S

Sujata Sharma Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRINCE ERNEST OF HANOVER VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANI KUNWAR VS. MOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALWA DEVADATTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAYAL SINCE DECEASED AND THEREAFTER HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES BANSGOPAL DUBEY VS. REOTI DEVI DECEASED AND AFTER HER DEATH MST DAYAVATI HER DAUGHTER [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAM BOHRA [REFERRED TO]
TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL VS. DEBT SINGH BHUJIL [REFERRED TO]
COMMR OF INCOME TAX MADHYA PRADESH NAGPUR AND BHANDARA NAGPUR IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. SETH GOVINDRAM SUGAR MILLS IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
R VENKATASWAMI NAIDU VS. NARASRAIN NURANIDAS [REFERRED TO]
KALE VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]
KALLOOMAL TAPESWARI PRASAD HUF KANPUR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANPUR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KANPUR: KALLOOMAL TAPESWARI PRASAD HUF KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHOV AND AS HARIBHAI TAMBOLI VS. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL VS. DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL DIED [REFERRED TO]
RAICHURAMATHAM PRABHAKAR VS. RAWATMAL DUGAR [REFERRED TO]
KAMESH PANJIYAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA VS. CHAKIRI YANADI [REFERRED TO]
SHEILA DEVI VS. KISHAN LAL KALRA [REFERRED TO]
GANGA SARAN VS. CIVIL JUDGE HAPUR GHAZIABAD [REFERRED TO]
INDO SWISS TIME LIMITED VS. UMRAO [REFERRED TO]
KULBHUSHAN KUMAR AND CO VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BADSHAH VS. SAU. URMILA BADSHAH GODSE [REFERRED TO]
SHREYA VIDYARTHI VS. ASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA VS. K. MEENA [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Men and women historically were born equal. However, over a period of time, with the advancement of civilization and hierarchical division of society, women have been pigeonholed according to gender roles which progressed into an act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society. Consequently, the once egalitarian society became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of Sati, Child Marriage, Sexual Harassment, Domestic Violence, Dowry Harassment and such like disparages. Legislature has time and again, brought forth reforms to overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind thereby enabling her to achieve her full potential and march shoulder to shoulder with men.

(2.) Despite robust legislations, real change has been slow due to the pervasive ambivalence and deeply ingrained stereotypes. This is where Courts assume significance for facilitation of implementation of the laws resulting in actualisation for the stakeholders. This has been true, especially in the laws conferring rights to women. It is known that though the right of women to own property came to be recognized under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the grim reality is that women were compelled, by their circumstances and family members, to forgo their rights in property. The tenacious role of Courts in upholding such rights of women has propelled them to agitate their long overdue entitlements, making Courts the game changer.

(3.) Similarly, the Amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which has conferred coparcenary rights to the women, equivalent to that of men, is a quintessence of another reform in law relating to women empowerment. However, the unwavering certitude in marginalisation of women, so deeply entrenched in Society, is perceived to be imperilled by the prospect of a woman taking the position of Karta in an HUF, a role that was traditionally assumed by men.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANU GUPTA Vs. SUJATA SHARMA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address