There are numerous personal laws in India. The applicability of these rules is generally determined by the religion practised by various cultures. The only common feature of all these different personal laws is that, they are prejudiced towards women and shows favouritism to men.

• Marriage

In every way, ancient Hindu law discriminated against women. The laws governing marriage did not apply equally to men and women. In the Vedas, the nature of Hindu marriage is described. A Hindu marriage, according to the Vedas, is an indissoluble union that lasts for eternity. It is indissoluble in the sense that the woman cannot have another spouse, no matter how harsh, demented or cruel their spouse is. A Hindu has the right to marry under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, while a Muslim has the right to marry under Muslim Personal Law. Marriage ceremonies in Hinduism are deemed to be complete only when all of the usual rites and rituals have been done. While Christian, Hindu, and Parsi marriages are considered sacraments, Muslim marriage is considered as a simple civil transaction rather than a sacrament, where there is absolutely no requirement for any sort of religious ceremonies.

Bigamy is illegal under Hindu law, according to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, although a man can marry up to 4 wives under the Muslim law. Unlike other religions, Islam promotes marriage strongly. Celibacy, like that of Roman Catholic priests and nuns, has no place in Islam. “There is no celibacy in Islam,” the Prophet remarked. In Muslim law, the wife is entitled to receive a quantity of money or other property equivalent to Mehr from her husband at the moment of marriage or at any time thereafter. Mehr is a duty put on the husband as a symbol of respect to the wife under Muslim Law, whereas the Dahej pratha or the dowry system is one of the most important practises in Indian marriages under Hindu Law, despite being illegal.

• Divorce

The grounds for divorce in Hindu Law are (i) if the husband is found guilty of rape or sodomy (ii) if the husband has married another women while already being married to his first wife, who’s alive (iii) if the girl was not of 15 years when she was married and ends up renouncing the marriage before she turns 18 (iv) if there has been no consummation for a whole year from the date of the order for maintenance under CPC or Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act has passed against husband.

The grounds for divorce in Muslim Law are (i) failure of husband to provide for wife for at least a period of 2 years (ii) if the husband isn’t meeting the responsibilities of marriage properly (iii) if husband’s been detained for 7 years or more (iv) if the husband has indulged in acts of cruelty.

Polygamy is a sufficient ground for divorce in Hindu law but not in Muslim law, whereby a man can marry any number of wives less than 4 but a woman can only marry one man. Under Muslim law, the position of women is far worse than what it is under the Hindu law as they face more discrimination and more restrictions in seeking divorce.

Christian women could not get a divorce only on their husband’s infidelity; it has to be accompanied with either cruelty, bestiality or sodomy. Christian husbands, on the other hand, might simply declare their wives to be adulteresses and divorce them. These outdated regulations were enacted during the colonial period to protect the interests of British bureaucrats who had lawfully married wives in England but were maintaining relations with a local. It was only last year that the government approved a plan to alter the archaic Christian Divorce Act 1869, owing to pressure from Christian women.

• Maintenance

A Hindu woman has more rights than a Muslim woman, according to the provisions of personal laws. The Hindu wife is entitled to give the maintenance amount after divorce from her spouse till she or he dies, according to Sec-18 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Also, according to Section 125 of the CPC, only a Hindu wife can divorce or be divorced by her husband and the woman is only entitled to receive maintenance on the ground of her not having married another man.

While a divorced woman in Muslim law does not have the ability to seek maintenance after the iddat period and is only entitled to the mehr, the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act of 1986 came into effect, protecting Muslim women’s rights. Women who are unable to support themselves can seek relief from the courts under Section 125 of the CPC.

• Inheritance

Because India lacks a uniform civil code, the legislation governing inheritance and property distribution varies depending on one’s religious beliefs. The Hindu Succession Act of 2005 and the Indian Succession Act of 1925 are two key statutes that govern property distribution.

Equal status was granted solely to daughters whose dads were alive when Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was amended on September 9, 2005. The Supreme Court, however, declared in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma[1] that daughters whose dad died intestate before the modification date have equal rights to the property. By birth, the daughter enjoys an equal part of the father’s property, according to the Supreme Court. Women from all walks of life applaud the decision, since it removes one of the most significant roadblocks to the gender equality movement.

Directive Principles Of State Policy

In the Indian Constitution’s Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties, and Directive Principles, the principle of gender equality is incorporated. The Constitution not only guarantees women’s equality, but also authorises the government to take affirmative discrimination measures in their favour. In 1993, India also ratified the CEDAW.

The goal of the DPSP is to establish a “Welfare State.” In other words, the inclusion of DPSP is motivated by the goal of developing social and economic democracy in the state, not political democracy. These are some essential ideas, instructions, or directions for the government to follow when drafting and enforcing the country’s laws and regulations.

Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy includes objectives that are to be secured by the State while making its policies and a couple of these relate to gender as well:

• All citizens, whether men or women, should have a right to a means of livelihood.
• Article 39 (d) – No gender discrimination shall exist and there shall be equal pay for women as well as man for equal amount of work done. For all sectors of the economy, India currently lacks a comprehensive and transparent wage strategy. Gender equality is the aim, while gender neutrality and gender equity are practises and ways of thinking that aid in that objective’s achievement.
• Article 39 (e) – The state must ensure that the health and strength of women workers are not abused, and that they are not dragged by economic necessity into occupations that are inappropriate to their strength, as well as that the health and strength of children under the age of 18 are similarly protected. They should not be pushed to work in inhumane and dangerous circumstances.

Article 42 talks about Securing just & humane work, along with maternity relief and how the state should create certain provisions to make sure that along with the citizens getting easy and humane conditions to work in, the women especially shall be provided maternity relief as well.

Article 44 under DPSPs talks about a Uniform Civil Code in India to make sure that equality between all its citizens can be achieved in its truest sense. Gender justice refers to women’s social, political, and economic equality. It alludes to the end of the patriarchal structure that has pervaded the institution. In the Indian socio-legal context, the implementation of a unified civil code and the question of gender justice are inextricably linked. Women’s empowerment is critical in areas such as social standing, gender bias, health, security, and empowerment. Article 44 requires the state to establish a Uniform Civil Code for all Indian nationals. In India, there is no one civil code, although there is a uniform criminal code. Criminal law applies equally to all citizens, regardless of their religious identity. However, there is no uniformity in civil law, notably in the area of personal law. “The state shall not discriminate against any person solely on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them,” states Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

This concept of DPSP serves as a model for India’s legislators and administrators, who use it to make policies and laws. They indicate India’s leaders the road that would lead the country to the constitution’s ideal of “justice, social, economic, and political” as enshrined in the Preamble.

A five-judge Supreme Court ruled that the inhumane Islamic practise of Talaq-e-biddat, in which husbands could irreversibly divorce their spouses by saying the word “talaq” three times, was unconstitutional. This practise was demeaning to women’s dignity and equality, as it violated our Constitution’s Articles 14, 12, 21, and 25. CJI Khehar believes that no practise can be justified only on the basis of its lengthy history, and that adequate law prohibiting it must be enacted immediately. Because of its subtle suggestion of religious doctrine ubiquitous across numerous religions, this landmark verdict bolstered the push for gender equality.

• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma[4]

In Vineeta v. Rakesh, the Supreme Court made history by ruling that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 will apply retroactively. The Amendment changed Section 6 of the Act to reflect the Constitution’s gender equality concept. According to the amendment, the coparcener’s daughter, like the boy, becomes a coparcener in her own right at birth. The decision was written by Arun Mishra, J, and stated that because a son’s right to be a coparcener is by birth, so is a daughter’s right to claim her share in the coparcenary property after the 2005 Amendment, and even if the father was not alive on September 9, 2005, it does not prevent a daughter from claiming her share in the coparcenary property. The Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Prakash v. Phulavati[5] and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju[6], which had held otherwise, were overruled by this decision. In this way, the Vineeta Sharma decision reaffirmed the law’s equitable treatment of sons and daughters for succession purposes.