Vol. 14, Part I · pages 26–30

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES8 the death of the woman to the reversioners of her husband. The Bill, here again, introduces two changes. It converts this limited estate into an absolute estate just as the male when he inherits gets an absolute estate in the property that he inherits and secondly, it abolishes the right of the reversioners to claim the property after the widow. An important provision which is ancillary to the rights of women to inherit property contained in this Bill is a provision which relates to Dowry. All members of the House know what a scandalous affair this dowry is; how, for instance, girls who bring enormous lot of property from their parents either by way of dowry or stridhan or gift are treated, nonetheless, with utter contempt, tyranny and oppression. The Bill provides in my judgment one of the most salutary provisions, namely, that this properly which is given as dowry to a girl on the occasion of her marriage shall be treated as a trust property, the use of which will inure to the woman and she is entitled to claim that property when she comes to the age of 18, so that neither her husband nor the relations of her husband will have any interest in that property; nor will they have any opportunity to waste that property and make her helpless for the rest of her life. Coming to the provisions relating to maintenance, there is mostly nothing new in this part of the Bill. The Bill prescribes that the dependents of a deceased shall be entitled to claim maintenance from those who inherit his property either under the rules of intestate succession or who inherit the property under his will. There are 11 different kinds of dependants, enumerated in this Bill. I believe, at least speaking for myself, it is an unfortunate thing that even a concubine is included in the category of dependants, but there it is; it is a matter for consideration. The liability to maintenance is cast upon those who take the estate of the deceased. As I said, there is nothing very new in this part of the Bill. There is another part of the Bill which is important and it relates to the rights of a wife to claim separate maintenance when she lives separate from her husband. Generally, under the provisions of the Hindu law, a wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if she does not live with him in his house. The Bill, however, recognises that there are undoubtedly circumstances where if the wife has lived away from the husband, it must be for causes beyond her control and

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 9 it would be wrong not to recognise the causes and not to give her separate maintenance. Consequently the Bill provides that a wife shall be entitled to claim separate maintenance from her husband if he is (1) suffering from a loathsome disease, (2) if he keeps a concubine, (3) if he is guilty of cruelty, (4) if he has abandoned her for two years, (5) if he has converted to another religion and (6) any other cause justifying her living separately. The next topic to which I wish to make a reference concerns the question of marriage. The Code recognises two forms of marriages. One is called “sacramental” marriage and the other is called “civil” marriage. As members will know, this is a departure from the existing law. The existing Hindu law recognises only what is called “sacramental” marriage, but it does not recognise what we call a “civil” marriage. When one considers the conditions for a valid sacramental marriage and a valid registered marriage, under the Code there is really very little difference between the two. There are five conditions for a sacramental marriage. Firstly, the bridegroom must be 18 years old, and the bride must be 14 years old. Secondly, neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage. Thirdly, parties must not be within prohibited degree of relationship. Fourthly, parties must not be sapindas of each other. Fifthly, neither must be an idiot or a lunatic. Except for the fact that similarity of sapindaship is not a bar to a registered marriage, so far as other conditions are concerned, there is no difference between the sacramental marriage and the civil marriage. The only other difference is that the registered marriage must be registered in accordance with the provisions in the Bill while a sacramental marriage may be registered if parties desire to do so. Comparing the rules of marriage contained in the Bill and the existing law, it may be noticed that there are three differences which the Bill makes. One is this, that while the existing law requires identity of caste and sub-caste for a valid sacramental marriage, the Bill dispenses with this condition. Marriage under the Bill will be valid irrespective of the caste or sub-caste of the parties entering into the marriage. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava (East Punjab : General) If the marriage is between persons belonging to different castes, will it be valid? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Let me proceed with my speech. If the Honourable Member puts the question while making his speech, I shall reply to it.

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES10 The second provision in this Bill is that identity of gotrapravara is not a bar to a marriage while it is under the existing law. The third distinctive feature is this, that under the old law, polygamy was permissible. Under the new law it is monogomy which is prescribed. The sacramental marriage was a marriage which was indissoluble. There could be no divorce. The present Bill makes a new departure by introducing into the law provisions for the dissolution of marriage. Any party which marries under the new code has three remedies to get out of the contract of marriage. One is to have the marriage declared null and void; secondly, to have the marriage declared invalid; and thirdly, to have it dissolved. Now, the grounds for invalidation of marriage are two: One, if one party to the marriage had a spouse living at the time of marriage, then such a marriage will be null and void. Secondly, if the relationship of the parties fell within what is called the ambit of prohibited-degrees, the marriage could be declared null and void. The grounds for invalidation of the marriage are four. First, impotency. Second, parties being sapinda. Third, parties being either idiotic or lunatic. Fourth, guardian’s consent obtained by force or fraud. In order not to keep the sword of dissolution hanging on the head, the Bill, in my judgment very wisely, has provided a limit to an action for invalidation. It provides that a suit for the invalidation of marriage must be filed within three years from the date of the marriage; otherwise the suit will be barred and the marriage will continue as though there was no ground for invalidity. The Bill also provides that even though the marriage may be invalidated and may be declared invalid by a court of Law, the invalidation of marriage will not affect the legitimacy of the children born and they would continue to be legitimate just the same. Then coming to the question of divorce, there are seven grounds on which divorce could be obtained. (1) desertion, (2) conversion to another religion, (3) keeping a concubine or becoming a concubine, (4) incurably unsound mind, (5) virulent and incurable form of leprosy, (6) venereal diseases in communicable form and (7) cruelty. Coming to the question of adoption, there again, most of the rules embodied in the Bill are in no way different from the rules obtaining under the present law. There are two new provisions in this part dealing with adoption. Firstly, under the Code, it will be necessary

DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 11 for the husband if he wants to make an adoption to obtain the consent of his wife and if there are more than one, at least the consent of one of them. Secondly, it also lays down that if the widow wants to adopt, she can only adopt if there are positive instructions left by the husband authorising her to adopt and in order to prevent litigation as to whether the husband has, as a matter of fact, left instructions to his wife, the code provides that the evidence of such instructions shall be either by registered deed or by a provision in the will. No oral evidence would be admissible, so that chances of litigation are considerably mitigated. The Code also provides that the adoption may also be evidenced by registration. One of the most fruitful sources of litigation in this country is the question of adoption. All sorts of oral evidence is manufactured, concocted; witnesses are suborned; widows are fooled; they one day declare that they have made one adoption and subsequently they make an avowal that they have not adopted and in order that all this litigation may be put a stop to, the Code makes a salutary provision that there may be registration of adoption by a Hindu. Then there is the question of minority and guardianship, the last subject which the Bill seeks to codify. There is nothing new in this part of the Code and, therefore, I do not propose to say anything so far as that part in the Bill is concerned. As members will realize, the points which arise out of this Bill for consideration and which are new are these: First, the abolition of birthright and to take property by survivorship. The second point that arises for consideration is the giving of half-share to the daughter. Thirdly, the conversion of the women’s limited estate into an absolute estate. Fourthly, the abolition of caste in the matter of marriage and adoption. Fifthly, the principle of monogamy and sixthly the principle of divorce. I have sought to enumerate these points separately and categorically because I felt that in view of the limited time we have at our disposal, it would be of help to the Members of this House if I could point out what are the points of debate on which attention may be concentrated. These departures which are made in this Bill undoubtedly requires justification, but I think it would be a waste of time if at this stage undertook any defence of the departures enacted by this Bill. I propose to hear Honourable Members as to what they have to say on the points which I have enumerated and if I find that

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES12 it is necessary for me to enter upon a justification, I propose to do so in the course of my reply. Sir, I move. Mr. Chairman : Motion moved : “That the Bill to amend and codify certain branches of the Hindu Law, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Shri M. Anantthasayanam Ayyangar, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi, Shri U. Srinivasa Mallayya, Shri Mihir Lal Chattopadhyay, Dr. P. S. Deshmukh, Shrimati Renuka Ray, Dr. P. K. Sen, Babu Ramnarayan Singh, Shri Kishorimohan Tripathi, Shrimati Ammu Swaminadhan, Pandit Balkrishna Sharma, Shri Khurshed Lal, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad, Shri B. Shiva Rao, Shri Baldeo Swarup, Shri V. C. Kesava Rao and the Mover, with instructions to report not later than the last day of the first week of the next session of the Assembly and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.” * Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras : General): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise at an early moment in order to catch your eye in the hope that I shall have the ear of the House while having the eye of the Chairman. This is a very interesting piece of legislation which has been presented to this House, a piece of legislation for which the country has been whiting for long. This country having passed under the rule of foreigners for nearly a thousand years has not been able to effect that social progress which is incidental to changes in society in the world and which takes place imperceptibly by force of everchanging custom. Custom is a force which is generally patronized, appreciated and recognized by the rulers. Unfortunately, this country has had no kings for a long time to whose inspiring example the subjects could look up for any changes in society. In the West, even today, if a social change is required all that is to be done is for the King to initiate that change and all the people will follow as a matter of course. You might have heard the story of Edward the Eighth, who, when he was Prince of Wales, went to a far distant island and having heard from the people that their occupation was gone because of the change of fashions, asked what the fashion was which had ruined the occupation. They said formerly they were manufactures of straw hats and now straw hats had given place to felt hats and therefore, they had lost their occupation. The next day he appeared in public on a ceremonial occasion with a straw hat and * C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. IV, 9th April 1948, pp. 3633-39.