Discussion on the Hindu Code after return of the Bill from the Select Committee (11th February 1949 to 14th December 1950) - Page 626

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 611

then we are anxious to do away with the joint family system which is based on principle of co-operation. Keeping these two things in view there should be some such provision which can meet them both. In my opinion the reason for restlessness prevailing in some sections of the public and the provision that makes this measure controversial is mainly the issue of succession. If somehow we can meet the point of succession we can then proceed with its proper consideration and pass this Code unanimously. Taking no more time of the House, I will submit only that the Members who are likely to be appointed to the Committee should conduct their deliberations keeping this difficulty in view, not because a daughter should get no share in her father’s property but to see that it does not disrupt our social system any way.

There is another point of controversy that strikes me. I may be wrong but so far as I have pondered, it seeems to me that taking an individual case of a son and a daughter, whereas a son is entitled to a share in the property of his parents only according to this Bill, a daughter enjoys a share in her father-in-law’s property as well. I do not see any reason for this disparity. I fail to understand why such a provision has been made therein. The Hon. the Minister of Law may kindly throw some light on this aspect while replying to the Debate as to what consideration has led for the inclusion of such a thing.

Taking no more time of the House, I will submit only this much.

*C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. VI, Part II, 12th December 1949, pp. 498-502.