( 1 )

( 2 ) SECTION 6-A was inserted in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central act XXX of 1956) vide Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1994, which received the assent of the President on 28th of July, 1994 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 30th of July, 1994. The said section provides:"6-A. Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 of this Act: (a) in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son; (b) at a partition in such a Joint Hindu Family the coparcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allottable to a son: provided that the share which a predeceased eon or a predeceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter: provided further that the share allottable to the predeceased child of a predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be; (c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by Will or other testamentary disposition (d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) act, 1990".

( 3 ) THE petitioners who are married daughters of respondent 2 have by this petition prayed to: (a) declare that the words "to a daughter married prior" in clause (d) of Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) act, 1990, Act No. 23 of 1994, as unconstitutional and null and void; (b) declare that the daughter as coparcener is entitled to seek partition in the coparcenary property in her own right as the son.

( 4 ) THE offending portion of clause (d) of Section 6-A is stated to be unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the State Amendment conferred upon a daughter of a coparcener to become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and to have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and subject to the same liabilities and disabilities as the son. It is contended that the State of Karnataka, following the example of some otber States in India made a provision to confer equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property governed by mitakshara Law. However, by limiting the operation of the provisions in respect of married daughters by Section 6-A (d), the daughters married prior to the commencement of the Act are alleged to have wrongly been deprived of the right conferred upon such daughters under clauses (a) and (b ). It is contended that there is no rationale or nexus sought to be achieved by making the alleged discrimination against the married woman prior to the date of the amendment. According to the petitioners, the married daughters, irrespective of the date of marriage, are a class in themselves and thus cannot be differentiated.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the traditional old Hindu Law, a Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons lineally descended from a c