Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act
This month’s judgment pertains to Snidha Mehra v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 732 of 2020, decided on 19th November 2025 by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan. The constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“the Act”) was challenged on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Section 15 of the Act lays down the general rules of succession in the case of a female Hindu dying intestate. Under Section 15(2), any property inherited by a Hindu female from her father or mother devolves, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon the heirs of her father. Likewise, property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or father-in-law devolves, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon the heirs of the husband. In essence, inherited property reverts to its original source of acquisition.
Section 15 (2) will not apply to separate or self acquired properties of a female Hindu, for e.g. property acquired by her under a will, or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or her Stridhan in any other manner whatsoever.
Section 15(1) prescribes the general order of succession: first, to the sons,daughters, and husband; second, to the heirs of the husband; third, to the mother and father; fourth, to the heirs of the father; and lastly, to the heirs of the mother. The challenge was directed at the fact that, as per this order, the self-acquired or separate property of a Hindu female dying intestate—if she has no husband, son, or daughter—devolves upon the heirs of her husband rather than upon her own parents, even though her parents may have played a crucial role in her upbringing,
education, and career.
The petitioner contended that in such cases, the property of a female Hindu should devolve upon her mother and father under Section 15(1)(c), instead of the heirs of her husband under Section 15(1)(b). In other words, parents should be given precedence over the husband’s heirs with respect to her self-acquired property.
The Supreme Court, summarizing the grievance, noted that “such a mode of devolution, to the exclusion of her parental family, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere, observing that the petition was in the nature of a public interest litigation, and granted liberty to raise the issue in an appropriate case. Nevertheless, it issued directions that if, in a future case, the parents or heirs of a female Hindu (as mentioned in Sections 15(1)(c), (d), and (e))make a claim to her estate—and Section 15(2) does not apply—then the parties must first undergo pre-litigation mediation before initiating any legal proceedings. This case raises an important question concerning the devolution of a woman’s self-acquired property. When the law was enacted on 17 th June 1956, Section 14 recognized a Hindu woman’s absolute ownership of property, but the legislature had not considered circumstances where such a woman might die intestate, leaving
behind self-acquired assets not covered under Section 15(2) of the Act. The solution suggested by the Union of India and endorsed by the Supreme Court is that women should safeguard their property interests by executing a testament or will—preferably a registered one—under Section 30 of the Act, read with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This would ensure that their self-acquired and other properties are distributed according to their wishes and protect the interests of women across the country.