Why Hindu law sends a woman's wealth to in‑laws, not her parents?

[Michael]

I thought we were already beyond the era where inheritance rules are equal. Still, deep‑rooted patriarchy and misogyny linger in the system.

[Kanchan]

The original post got flagged by the mods, so I updated it and posted again.

[Vivek]

The law stems from an old patriarchal notion that, after marriage, a woman belongs to her husband's family. That's why her property can go to the in‑laws before her own parents. It's outdated thinking that hasn't been fully corrected yet.

[Kunal]

Sigh, after all that legal explanation about current law, class 1 heirs, etc., was it really necessary to start another thread? Anyway, it won't matter much because the Uniform Civil Code will eventually supersede the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

[Niraj]

Whatever law we enact, it's built on some older source. Even the British translated Puranic texts to draft our statutes. In our ancient legal texts, women were treated as property. So no matter how modern we try to make the law, it's like pouring clean water into a dirty pond – the contamination never fully goes away as long as our legal system is rooted in the 'Indian context'.

[Niraj]

So you're saying kanyadaan is just a tradition with no other implications? I'm waiting for the answer!

[Malini]

I had no clue about this and had to Google it. So if I die tomorrow, all my money would go to my in‑laws instead of my parents? What a load of nonsense!

[Navya]

We have indeed come a long way. Hindu personal laws have been reformed over time, unlike many other communities. Just look at Muslim personal laws – women face far tougher restrictions. Parsi women lose inheritance rights if they marry a non‑Parsi, but the reverse isn't an issue. Until recently, Christian women couldn't file for divorce on grounds of mental or physical abuse or cheating (unless it was incest). Female genital mutilation is still legally practiced among Bohra Muslims. Only a Uniform Civil Code, as Ambedkar and Patel argued and as the Constitution envisions, can remove such inconsistencies. Yet most Muslim patriarchs oppose it. It's high time we push for a progressive uniform law for every citizen – the CJI made the same point last week.

[Nitin]

That sounds terrible. I didn't know this. If we want our assets to go to our siblings or someone else, can we just write a will to stop the default law from taking over?