It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Samiulla Khan & Ors vs Sirajuddin Macci in Regular First Appeal No.935 of 2020 (Par) C/W RFA Cross Objection No.33 of 2023 and cited in NC: 2025:KHC:14374 that was pronounced as recently as on April 4, 2025 has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the enforcement of the uniform civil code will accelerate the dream of equality among women irrespective of their caste and religion. We see that the Bengaluru High Court urged the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on the uniform civil code (UCC). It is high time and earlier also we have seen so many High Courts and even Supreme Court calling upon the enactment of a uniform civil code in so many different cases but to no avail as since last nearly 80 years of independence we see nothing most unfortunately translating into reality which makes for most depressing reading!
It definitely cannot now go unnoticed that a Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar held clearly that:
Our Country needs Uniform Civil Code in respect of their Personal Laws and Religion, only then the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be achieved. A ‘Daughter’ under Hindu Law is having equal status/right/entitlement and interest as that of Son and in case of wife she is having equal status as that of husband, this is more or like fulfilling object and principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but it is not so under the Mahomedan Law. It is a national shame and national disgrace that even after so many years of independence with 100 years standing at gate and still Centre has not taken any step towards the creation of a uniform civil code even though it is explicitly mentioned in Article 44 of Constitution and recommended so many times by Apex Court and different High Courts! It must be enacted at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
RFA No.935/2020 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.25162/2019 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’), so far as lesser share granted in the suit schedule ‘B’ properties.
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that:
RFA Crob.No.33/2023 is filed by the cross objector/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.25162/2019 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, thereby, challenging granting share of property in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and contended that the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled any share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Therefore, against decreeing the suit the cross objector/defendant has preferred the above cross objection.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that:
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition in the property left by their sister Smt. Shahnaz Begum by metes and bounds. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and plaintiff No.3 is sister and defendant is husband of Shahnaz Begum. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belonging to one Smt. Shahnaz Begum (wife of defendant) as she has purchased the suit schedule ‘A’ property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 03.12.1987 and suit schedule ‘B’ properties through registered sale deed dated 09.02.2010. The said Shahnaz Begum died on 06.01.2014 leaving behind her husband/defendant, brothers/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and sister/plaintiff No.3 to succeed her estate. After death of Shahnaz Begum, the appellants/plaintiffs got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to make partition and to allot 50% of share in her estate left by Shahnaz Begum, but the cross objector/defendant denied the same. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds.
While shedding more light, the Bench then further discloses in para 5 mentioning succinctly that:
The cross objector/defendant has appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. The cross objector/defendant has admitted the relationship of the appellants/plaintiffs with deceased Shahnaz Begum also with him.
Further, admitted that the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of his wife (Shahnaz Begum) till her lifetime and contended that the said properties are purchased by him in the name of Shahnaz Begum out of his love and affection. Further contended that the suit schedule properties have not come to his wife from her parental side therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to have share in the said properties. The cross objector/defendant has constructed the building over the suit schedule ‘A’ property and he is receiving the rents during lifetime of his wife therefore, the cross objector/defendant is absolute owner of the property and the appellants/plaintiffs do not have any share by making claim of partition.
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 observing that:
Further the cross objector/defendant has taken contention that the suit is barred by limitation as his wife (Shahnaz Begum) died on 06.01.2014, the suit is filed after five years. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 40 that:
Therefore, marriage among Mahomedans is a civil contract and not sacrament. Law of Inheritance is different under Mahomedan Law than Hindu Law.
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 41 that, Article 14 of the Constitution of India stipulates as follows:
14. Equality before law.- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 42 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
Therefore, ‘Women’ in India are all equal but the Personal Law according to religion makes difference among the women though they are Citizen of India. A ‘Woman’ in Hindu Law is having birth right equal to that of Son being a Daughter. When under Hindu Law a daughter is given equal status and right in all respects enjoying rights as that of son the same is not so under Mahomedan Law. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that our Country needs Uniform Civil Code in respect of their Personal Laws and Religion, only then the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be achieved. A ‘Daughter’ under Hindu Law is having equal status/right/entitlement and interest as that of Son and in case of wife she is having equal status as that of husband, this is more or like fulfilling object and principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but it is not so under the Mahomedan Law.
Equally significant is what is then underscored by the Bench in para 43 propounding that:
As in the present case, the plaintiffs being two brothers and sister of deceased Shahnaz Begum, though plaintiff No.3 being sister is entitled to share as residuary but not as sharer. This is one of the circumstances of discrimination between brothers and sister, but that is not found under Hindu Law. The brothers and sisters are equally having status/right/entitlement and interest under Hindu Law. Therefore, this is an example for necessity of making Law on Uniform Civil Code.
Most rationally, the Bench points out in para 51 observing that:
The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The Court is of the opinion that bringing a law on Uniform Civil Code and its enforcement certainly give justice to women, achieve equality of status and opportunity for all and accelerate the dream of equality among all women in India irrespective of caste and religion and also assure dignity individually through fraternity.
As a corollary, the Bench then further points out in para 52 stating that, Therefore, the enactment of a law on Uniform Civil Code will truly achieve the objects of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that it should make a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code. It has been informed to the Court that some states (Goa and Uttarakhand) have already enacted laws on Uniform Civil Code.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 53 that:
Therefore, the Registrar General is requested to forward copy of this judgment to the Principal Law Secretaries of both Union of India and State of Karnataka with a hope that the Union of India and State of Karnataka will make endeavour in this regard in enacting the Legislation on Uniform Civil Code achieving object of the Article 44 of the Constitution of India.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 54 that:
Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the present case as above discussed, the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in RFA No.935/2020 is liable to be dismissed. RFA Crob.No.33/2023 is liable to be allowed in part.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in RFA No.935/2020 is dismissed.
- The cross appeal filed by the defendant/cross objector in RFA Crob. No.33/2023 is allowed in part.
- The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.25162/2019 by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Bengaluru (CCH-73), is hereby modified holding that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to have 1/10th share each in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Plaintiff No.3 is entitled to have 1/20th share in suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and the defendant is entitled 3/4th share in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties by metes and bounds.
- No order as to costs.
- Draw award accordingly.
- The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay professional fee to the learned Amicus Curiae as per Rules.
- The Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka is requested to forward copy of this order to the Principal Law Secretaries of both Union of India and State of Karnataka with a request to make an endeavour in Legislating on Uniform Civil Code fulfilling aspirations of Article 44 of the Constitution of India.
All told, it is most baffling that why uniform civil code has not been created even though Dr BR Ambedkar most vocally supported it and so also Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, TT Krishnamachari and Maulana Hasrat Mohani among others. Even the Supreme Court in Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum and others 1985 (2) SCC 556 and so also in Sarla Mudgal (Smt), President, Kalyani And Others vs. Union of India and Others (1995) 3 SCC 635 and in John Vallamattom and Another vs. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611 (John Vallamattom’s Case) among others has underscored the dire need to most promptly implement the uniform civil code in India. Now this latest Karnataka High Court ruling is again a timely reminder to Centre and States that this long pending uniform civil code that has been lingering for so long most inordinately needs to be definitely implemented at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
