What was the key question in Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa?

Whether Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (female intestate succession) is unconstitutional for being unfair and discriminatory.

What did the Court say about gender equality in HSA?

The Court noted that the 1956 codification aimed to improve female equality, though certain provisions were alleged to retain bias requiring constitutional scrutiny.

Was Section 15(1) finally struck down?

The single judge referred the constitutional questions to a Division Bench. Interim arrangements were made; the final decision was reserved for the Bench.

What interim direction was given regarding the flat?

The plaintiff could use the flat with an undertaking not to sell or transfer it until the constitutional validity of Section 15(1) was decided.

Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (MANU/MH/1869/2012)

Quick Summary

This case questions whether Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs a Hindu female’s intestate property, is unfair and therefore unconstitutional. The defendant claimed gender bias when the law prefers the husband’s family over the mother’s side. The Court traced the history of codified Hindu law, noted the push for female equality, and referred the constitutional challenge to a Division Bench. Meanwhile, it allowed the plaintiff to use the flat on an undertaking not to transfer it until the issue is finally decided.

CASE_TITLE: Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (2012) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 15 HSA; female intestate succession; constitutional validity SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 15(1); codified Hindu law; interim relief; Bombay High Court PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Issues

Is Section 15 HSA unconstitutional for being unfair or discriminatory in devolving a Hindu female’s intestate property?
How do Sections 8 (male) and 15 (female) compare for equality under Article 15?

Rules

Section 8 HSA (male intestate): Class I heirs (male and female descendants) inherit equally; widows and mothers are placed with preference reflecting protective rationale under Article 15(3).
Section 15 HSA (female intestate): Lays a different order of heirs, often placing the husband’s family ahead of the mother’s side—alleged as gender bias.
Constitutional Lens: Any statutory classification must have a rational nexus; otherwise it may violate Article 15(1) (non-discrimination).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for challenge to Section 15 HSA in Bombay High Court

Plea: Defendant’s caveat questioned the plaintiff’s relationship and challenged HSA provisions as biased towards the father’s/husband’s kin.

Allegation: Sections 8 and 15 HSA discriminate by treating male and female intestate succession differently; Section 8 ignores source of property unlike the effect seen in Section 15.

Context: Codified Hindu law sought uniformity and greater female equality, but some rules allegedly kept historical preferences.

Property Status: Dispute involved a flat; keeping it locked pending the challenge was found inequitable.

Arguments

Challenger (Defendant/Caveator)

Section 15(1) unfairly privileges the husband’s heirs over the mother’s kin—gender bias.
Section 8 (male succession) and Section 15 (female succession) are misaligned—violates Article 15(1).
Class II patterns under Section 8 lack rationality compared to the scheme under Section 15(2).

Respondent (Plaintiff/State)

1956 Act intended to improve female equality over ancient law; classifications have policy basis.
Some preferences (e.g., for widow/mother) reflect Article 15(3) protective measures, not prejudice.
Constitutional questions should go to a Division Bench for authoritative ruling.

Judgment (Held)

Order allowing limited use of flat pending constitutional decision

Court acknowledged the evolution of Hindu law and the need to test any remaining bias.
Constitutional validity of Section 15(1) and related parts was referred to a Division Bench.
Interim: Plaintiff may enter/use the flat with a written undertaking not to sell/transfer till the validity issue is decided.
Registry/parties could move for assignment of the suits to the Division Bench for arguments.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a personal law provision is alleged to create gender-based discrimination, the matter warrants constitutional review. Interim relief should balance equities so property is maintained without defeating eventual rights.

Why It Matters

The case spotlights the gender justice lens in intestate succession for Hindu females. It frames how courts may handle constitutional doubts—by reference to a Bench and by giving fair interim protection.

Key Takeaways

Section 15(1) HSA faces a constitutional challenge on gender grounds.
Historical codification aimed at equality, yet classification must still pass Article 15 tests.
Courts may grant use-based interim relief to avoid waste of property.
Final word rests with the Division Bench on constitutional questions.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Classify • Clarify • Clarion.”

Classify: Spot how Section 8 vs Section 15 classify heirs.
Clarify: Test the classification under Article 15(1)/(3).
Clarion: If doubtful, send to Bench; protect property via interim orders.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does Section 15(1) HSA violate Article 15(1) by preferring the husband’s heirs over the mother’s side?

Rule

Statutory classification must be rational and non-discriminatory; protective measures under Article 15(3) can justify some preferences.

Application

Alleged bias identified; historical aims noted; question referred to Division Bench for authoritative constitutional review.

Conclusion

Interim possession allowed with undertaking; final decision on validity pending before the Bench.

Glossary

Intestate: Dying without a valid will; property devolves by statute.
Class I / Class II: Schedules under HSA listing priority heirs for intestate succession.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination; clause (3) allows special provisions for women/children.
Undertaking: A written promise to the court to do or not do certain acts during the case.