In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that a woman's entitlement to serve as the Karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) remains unrestricted by both legislative statutes and traditional Hindu Law.

The division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, highlighted that the primary barrier preventing a woman from assuming the role of Karta today stems from familial resistance towards embracing societal and cultural shifts.

The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment declaring a woman as the Karta of a HUF in the case of DR Gupta and sons.

Following the demise of all of DR Gupta's sons, a critical question arose regarding the Karta. Sujata Sharma, one of DR Gupta's grandchildren and the eldest among them, asserted her claim to become the next Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

In the face of opposition from male relatives within her family, Manu Gupta asserted himself as the Karta, challenging Sujata Sharma's claim. The Court, in its ruling dated December 4, mentioned the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which granted equal inheritance rights to both  Hindu men and women.

It then considered the question of whether recognition of a woman as coparcener can lead to her becoming a Karta to assume the management of the family property.

The Court's conclusion highlighted that the primary qualifications for assuming the role of Karta were seniority based on age and the status of being a coparcener. It noted that traditional law did not explicitly bar a woman from being a manager, but historically, the designation of "senior most male" was tied to the status of coparcener, which had been exclusively accorded to male members within a Joint Hindu Family structure.

“This limitation has been redressed by Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 which now confers the equal status of Coparcener on woman equating her rights to be at par with a son''

In this context, the Court highlighted that while the reference in the Act's Preamble might specifically mention inheritance, the extension of "same" rights inherently encompasses all other entitlements, including the right to assume the position of Karta.

The Court rejected the argument that the husband of a female Karta would have an indirect control over the activities of the HUF of her father’s family. Such a notion was deemed by the Court as reflective of a narrow and outdated mindset.

Thus, he Court officially appointed Sujata Sharma as the designated Karta to represent the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of DR Gupta & Sons before the Competent Authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favor of affirming her as the rightful Karta.

Case Title - Manu Gupta v Sujata Sharma & Ors

RFA(OS) 13/2016 & CM APPL. 6041/2016