INTRODUCTION

The personal law of the Hindus, such as relating to marriage, succession and the
like has all as a cramental origin, in the same manner as in the case of the Muslims
or the Christians. The Hindus along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Janis have forsaken
their sentiments in the cause of the national unity and integration, some other
communities would not, though the Constitution enjoins the establishment of a
"Uniform civil Code" for the whole of India.
The personal laws of the major religious communities had traditionally governed
marital and family relations, with the Government maintaining a policy of noninterference in such laws in the absence of a demand for change from individual
religious communities. India is a land of diverse religions Hindus, Buddhists, Janis,
Christians, Muslims, Parsees, and Sikhs form the nation. Unity in diversity is the
core feature of the Indian nation. Each community has its own laws governing
marriage and divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, and succession. These
personal laws go with an individual across the states of India where they are part of
the law of the land, and the individual is entitled to have that individual's own
personal law applied and not the law which would be applied in the local territory.
Personal laws are statutory and customary laws applicable to particular religious or
cultural groups within a national jurisdiction. They govern family relations in such
matters as marriage and divorce, maintenance and succession. India is a
secular country where every community is allowed its own personal laws.
Christians have the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce
Act 1869, Hindus have the Hindu Succession Act, 1925[hereinafter HSA, 1956]
and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[hereinafter HMA, 1955] and so on. Muslim
personal law, based on the Sharia, is not codified. Since Muslims are governed by
the Sharia, an Indian male Muslim is entitled to have four wives at any time. It is
interesting to note that after independence, Pakistan modernized its personal law
and made it quite difficult for a man to marry a second time. Tunisia and Turkey
have actually abolished polygamy. In India, only Muslim men may practice
polygamy, and Hindu sons inherit greater shares of their parents estates than their
sisters do. While one's religion determines which law will apply to him or her
regarding marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, inheritance, and
succession. Uniform civil code [hereinafter UCC] of India is a term referring to the
concept of an overarching Civil Law Code in India. A uniform civil code
administers the same set of secular civil laws to govern all people, even those
belonging to different religions and regions. This supersedes the right of citizens to
be governed under different personal laws based on their religion or ethnicity. Such

codes are in place in most modern nations. There is no doubt that the idea of UCC
is by and large, a child of independent India. The British Indian Government
merely enacted a few laws which governed family relationships irrespective of the
religions of the partners for e.g. Special Marriage Act, 1872; Married Womens
Property Act, 1874; Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Child Marriage Restraint
Act, 1929.The British did not show any pursuit to encourage the environment of
uniformity of Laws in India. To quote Choudhary Hyder Husain, a prominent
Muslim lawyer, Living under the British rule for about two centuries we have
come to consider it only natural for Hindus to be governed by Hindu Law and
Muslim to be governed by Muslim Law; but it is wholly a medieval idea and has
no place in the modern world...I would therefore strongly urge the necessity
of having one single code to be named as Indian Civil Code applicable to
everybody living within the territory of Indian Union irrespective of caste, creed or
religion persuasions. This is the juristic solution to the communal problem .It
appears to be absolutely essential in the Interest of the unification of the country
for building up one single nation with one single set of laws in the country. Article
44 of the Indian Constitution requires the State to secure for its citizens a Uniform
Civil Code throughout the territory of India. The term civil code issued to cover
the entire body of laws governing rights relating to property and personal matters
such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance. The object of
this code is to enhance national integration by eliminating contradictions based on
ideologies. It aims to bring all communities on a common platform on matters
which are currently governed by diverse personal laws. However, even after 60
years of independence, our law makers are yet to give effect to this provision. This
article focuses on:
the status of the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code and,
The steps taken and directed to be taken by the Legislature and Judiciary in this
regard.
2. NEED FOR UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
Ours is a country with several different religions and belief systems. The accepted
principle of law is that personal belief systems and laws must be in conformity
with the Constitution and not the other way round. Article 25 of the Constitution
guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess
practice and propagate religion. Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees to every
religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in the matters
of religion. No set of laws can violate these Articles, which essentially protect the

religious freedom of different person or communities. We are thus presented with a

situation that seems somewhat contradictory; how can there be a uniform set of
laws which protects religious freedom at the same time? The implementation of a
uniform set of laws calls for discarding certain personal laws which go against
Societys general outlook as a whole, and this may amount to violation of the
above mentioned Articles of the Constitution. With multiple belief systems, come
multiple ideological conflicts. To live together in concurrence with such diversity,
we need to have uniformity at some level so as to avoid such conflicts. What we
need is a Uniform Civil Code in the form of a sophisticated, harmonized system of
legal regulation that maintains and skillfully uses the input of personal laws and yet
achieves a measure of legal uniformity. As long as the code does not go against the
essence i.e. the core or fundamental belief of any particular religion, it will not go
against the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The UCC has
been permanently associated in the Indian mind with opposition by the Muslims. It
was rightly pointed out in the Constituently assembly that all Hindus were in favor
of UCC .They felt that the personal law of inheritance, succession, etc. is really a
part of their religion. If that were so, Indian women can never be given equality
with a man who is enshrined in art. 14 of the Constitution. Art. 15(1) provides that
the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, and place of birth or any of them. Look at Hindu law, we will find
discrimination against women everywhere. If personal law of Hindus is a part of
Hindu religion, equality can never be attained among men and women. Religion
must be restricted to religion only and the secular activities attached to the religion
must be regulated, unified and modified for a strong and consolidated nation. The
present Muslim law can never provide equality to Muslim women- if personal law
is considered as a part of their religion. To elevate the position of Indian women
and provide them equality, India is badly needed of a UCC for all Indians.
3. Uniform Civil Code and Secularism a Debate
The Government, the press, the politicians, the academics and even the minority
organizations-none of them have taken any sort of active interest in the UCC. Thus
we could easily infer from the attitude of people prevailing these days that this
concept has been ignored and at worst they have spread false information and
impression about it. But, if we see todays scenario then India is more
communalize then it was in 1947, so we should realize that the concept of UCC
had become very important and need immediate concern. People, who were the
founding fathers of constitution as well as non-Muslims thought that a uniform
civil code was necessary for our national unity and secularism. But along with

them there are also few people who disagree about this concept like Prof. Paras
Diwan says The uniform civil code has nothing to do with Indianisation or
national integration or interfering with the religion of one community or the other.
4. Simplicity in law
Uniform civil code provides clarity which arises out of simplicity. Different
religions had made the legal system a maze by creating rights for individuals in
some ways and taking them in another way depending upon the religion they
follow. Thus to create clarity forth rights available to all individual uniformly, there
is a requirement of uniform civil code.
5. Position of the Legislature:
The question of implementation of a common Civil Code has been raised mainly
with regard to matters where, the personal laws of a religious community have
been challenged in the court of law as being volatile of the Constitution or against
general public interest. Our law makers have generally shied away from legislating
on such points of personal law as are considered to be of controversial or sensitive
nature, for fear such legislation being labeled as an intrusion on the above rights
thereby resulting in strong backlash. This became evident from the reaction to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case which gave a divorced
Muslim woman the right to claim maintenance even after the period of iddat. If the
amount known as meher, paidto her on divorce was not sufficient for her
livelihood, she could claim maintenance under S.125of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C). There was great agitation against this decision, led by Mullahs and
Maulvis and other fundamentalist sections, as being against the tenets of Islam.
Succumbing to the pressure of vote-bank politics and in order to appease the
Muslim fundamentalists, the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted The Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act to undo this decision. This Act
exempted Muslims from the general law regulations of the Cr.P.C, including S.125.
It tried to restrict the divorced Muslim Womans right to maintenance up to the
iddat period only and provided that under section 3(1)(a) a divorced women is
entitled to reasonable and fair provision and maintenance within the iddat period.
Similarly in case of the Adoption of Children Bill 1972, the Muslim community
opposed a uniform law regarding adoption applicable to all communities since
Islam does not recognize adoption. Due to this opposition, the bill was
subsequently dropped and reintroduced in 1980with an express clause of nonapplicability to Muslims. This was again opposed, this time by the Bombay
Zoroastrian Jashan Committee, which formed a special committee to exempt Parsis
from the bill. The Adoption of Children Bill, 1995, was passed by both Houses of
the Maharashtra legislative assembly, but is still awaiting presidential assent. What

needs to be understood is that the religion of an individual or denomination has

nothing to do in the matter of socio-economic laws of the
State. The freedom of religion conferred by the Constitution is not absolute and
by no means does it allow religion to contravene the secular rights of the citizens
and the power of the State to regulate the socio-economic relations. Basically, a
Common Civil Code will override only those personal laws which do not form the
essence of any religion. The keyword here is essence.
Personal laws which form the fundamental basis or the core of any belief system
are ideally, excluded from the purview of the Common Civil Code. Like the
concept of secularism, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity all are essential and
inseparable part of Indian Constitution and along with clarity and security are also
considered essential part of the constitution and as stated earlier prevalence of
different personal laws ruins the clarity of laws and creates apprehensions in the
mind of different religions so the very purpose of the Constitution is not fulfilled
and there is a necessity for the formation of Uniform Civil Code. Providing justice
without equality to the individual will not fulfill the very basic purpose of the
Constitution. It will create such a situation in which a person have the power to go
to courts for infringement of his rights but the basis of this infringement is equality
itself which is not provided to individual. Along with the above reasons the
Fundamental Rights which are considered to be the basic structure of the
Constitution will also not be provided to the individual under the garb of different
personal laws. There will be infringement of Articles like 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. As
all of them talks about equality like Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them. Article 16 talks about
equality in matters of public employment. Thus the very purpose of these Articles
will not be fulfilled if the different personal will keep on prevailing as they provide
different treatment to individuals within accordance with the religion they follow.
6. SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE
This area throws up even more intractable problems. In Hindu law, there is a
distinction between a joint family property and self acquired property which is not
so under the Muslim law. The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), formed under the
Hindu law, run businesses and own agricultural lands. Under the UCC, this
institution of HUF, peculiar to the Hindus, has to be abolished. There are also
fetters imposed on the extent to which one can bequeath property by will under the
Muslim law. Considering all these, the UCC should be included. The law which is
applicable on Parsi and Christian with regard to the succession i.e. The Indian
Succession Act, 1925 should be considering while framing UCC for Succession
laws in India. Thus due to all above reasons it is felt that the formation of Uniform
Civil code is the prime necessity in Todays time for our nation. Lastly, a very real

fear has begun to make itself felt, which is that if we do not make efforts now to
move towards the UCC, and as the majority loses patience, we shall lose the littlie
ground that we have gained
According to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance..
Sec-18 Maintenance of wife(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before
or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her
husband during her lifetime.
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without
forfeiting her claim to maintenance,(A) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable
cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of willfully neglecting her;
(b) If he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in
her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;
(c) If he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;
(d) If he has any other wife living;
(e) If he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or
habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) If he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
(g) If there is any other cause justifying her living separately?
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from
her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another
religion.
According to Hindu marriage actSec- 24 Maintenance Pendent late and expenses proceedings. Where in any
proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband,
as the case may be, has no independent respondent, it may seem to the court to be
reasonable. (Where it appears to Court that the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary
expenses of the proceedings, it may grant interim maintenance to the wife.)
Sec-25 Permanent alimony and maintenance.
(1)Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any
decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose
by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent

shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such grosssum or
such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant
as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the
income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment
may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the
respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party
at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance
of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court
may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favor an order has been made
under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not
remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse
with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary,
modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].
7. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: A CALL FROM THE INDIAN JUDICIARY
Even after more than six decades from the framing of the constitution, the ideal of
UCC under Article 44, is yet to be achieved. However, efforts in this discretion
continued as reflected in various pronouncements of the supreme court from time
to time The Supreme Court seems to have a divided opinion on the introduction of
a Uniform Civil Code. On one hand, it has rejected attempts to do so through
public interest litigation but on the other, it has recommended early legislation for
its implementation. In Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano, s Begum, popularly
known as the Shah Banos case, the Supreme Court held that It is also a matter of
regret that Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter. Despite
section 127 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (which provides that if a woman has received an
amount under personal law, she would not been titled to maintenance under section
125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 after divorce) Muslim women would be entitled to
maintenance if amount received by her as dower under personal law is not
sufficient for her sustenance. Though the decision was highly criticized by Muslim
Fundamentalists, yet it was considered a liberal interpretation of law as required by
gender justice. Later, on under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists, the central
government passed the Muslim womens (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986, which denied right of maintenance to Muslim women under section 125 of
Cr. P.C. The activists rightly denounced that it was doubtless a retrograde step.

That also showed how womens rightshave a low priority even for the secular state
of India. Autonomy of a religious establishment was thus made to prevail over
womens rights. In Sarla Mudgal (Smt.), President, Kalyani and others v. Union
of India and others Prime Minister of the Country to have a fresh look at Art. 44 of
the Constitution of India and Endeavour to secure for its citizens a UCC
throughout the territory of India. He also suggested the appointment of a
committee to enact a Conversion of religion Act. R.M. Shahai, J., while agreeing
with Kuldip Singh, J., too agreed that Ours is a Secular Democratic Republic.
Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. But religious practices, volatile of
human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentiality civil and
material freedoms, are not autonomy but oppression. In Lily Thomas etc. v. Union
of India and others the Court held that: The desirability of UCC can hardly be
doubted. But it can concretize only when social climate is properly built up by elite
of the society, statement amongst leaders who instead of gaining personal mileage
rise above and awaken the masses to accept the change. The court further added
while it was desirable to have a UCC, the time was yet not ripe and the issue
should (be) entrusted to the Law Commission which may examine the same in
consultation with minorities Commission. That is why when the court drew up the
final order signed by both the learned judges it said, the writ petition are allowed
in terms of the answer to the questions posed in the opinion of kuldip Singh, J.
These questions we have extracted earlier and the decision was confined to
conclusions reached thereon whereas the observations on the desirability of
enacting the UCC were incidentally made. In Danial Latifi and another v. Union
of India the court upheld the validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, as not being volatile of articles 14, 15
and 21 of the Constitution of India. Under section 3 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a Muslim husband is liable to make
reasonable and fair provision for future of divorced wife which includes
maintenance also, so she is not entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of
Cr.P.C. Under section 4 of the Act, divorced Muslim woman unable to maintain
herself after iddat period can precede against her relatives or wakf Board for
maintenance. Rajendra Babu, J., on behalf of a five judges bench consisting of
Patnaik, Mohapatra, Doraiswamy, Patil, and JJ...And himself observed that:In interpreting the provisions where matrimonial relationship is involved we have
to consider the social conditions prevalent in our society. It is a small solace to say
that such a woman should be compensated in terms of money towards her
livelihood and such a relief which partakes basic human rights to secure gender
and social justice is universally recognized by persons belonging to all religions.
In John Vallamattom v. Union of India the Supreme Court in a PIL by a Christian
priest, John and other citizens of Christian community, challenging the validity of

the section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, while striking down the said
section as being volatile of article 14 of the Constitution, and also concerned over
the contradictions in marriage laws of various religions, in a historic judgments,
emphasized the need for a legislation by Parliament on common civil code.
Stressing that there was no necessary connection between religious and personal
laws in a civilized society, a three judge bench held that it was matter of regret that
article 44 of the Constitution, which provided for the state to Endeavour to
secure a UCC for its citizens throughout India, had not been affected. The Court
further observed that Parliament is still to step in for framing a UCC in the
country. A UCC will help the cause of the national integration by removing the
contradiction based on ideologies. It can be said that after mentioning the apex
court view regarding the implementation of UCC that Art. 44 needs to be
interpreted to sustain the plurastic character of the Indian community. It should be
on the gender justice rather than on uniformity. Although the Supreme Court has
not yet interpreted Art. 44. On all his decisions the Court enjoined upon the
parliament to enact a UCC without specifying what a UCC would mean. However,
the word uniform should not mean the same law for all but it should mean
similar laws for all and similarly should be regarding equality and gender justice.
In Pannalal Bansilal v.State of Andhra Pradesh, it held that a uniform law though
highly desirable, the enactment thereof in one go may be counter-productive to the
unity and integrity of the nation. Gradual progressive change should be brought
about. Similarly, in Maharishi Avadhesh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
dismissed a writ petition to introduce a common Civil Code on the ground that it
was a matter for the legislature and in Ahmadabad Women Action Group v. Union
of India , the Supreme Court showed reluctance to interfere in matters of personal
law
8. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE OPTIONAL OR COMPULSORY
The government has an intention to for a voluntary or optional UCC. It has be
emerged by the public that a voluntary code would be a welcome stepping stone
towards a compulsory code and would also allay the misgivings of the Muslims
that the code would impose Hindu personal law upon them. The convention of the
Bar Council of India on the UCC came out strongly in favor of a compulsory code.
The problem in optional code is that it cannot be a uniform. It can only be
One more addition to the existing family laws, thus compounding rather than
reducing the confusion that exists. The two facets with regard to the concept of
optionality should be considered .Either one has to opt for the entire code or one
may opt for selected areas. One feels that opting for the UCC should be one-way
process. There should be no withdrawing. Once a person opts he/she will have

opted for their future generations as well. There will be no opting out. If one
spouse opts for the code, the other will also have to do so as otherwise the option
will be ineffective. A voluntary code will create its own uncertainty as, confusion
and misinformation. For all the reasons, the UCC will have to be an improvement
on the existing laws in all respects and it will have to be very clear in its
expression. Why do we need a Uniform Civil Code? What does our Constitution
say about Uniform Civil Code? In our constitution clearly specifies this "The State
shall endeavor to secure the citizen uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India. The objective of this article is to effect an integration of India by bringing
all communities into a common platform which is at present governed by personal
laws which do not form the essence of any religion. The constitution is very clear
that unless a uniform civil code is followed, integration cannot be imbibed.
However, the so called secularists and saviors of secularism in India think
otherwise. Their argument is that this code will affect the religious freedom of
minorities. One fails to understand how abiding the law of land can go against
religious principles! They claim that the sentiments of the minorities are not
considered while implementing common law! This code does not insist people
from one religion to start practicing rituals of other religions. All it says is, with
changing living styles along with the time, there should be a uniform civil code
irrespective of all religions as far as social ethics are concerned Till 1935, the
Muslims in India followed different rules according to their practice. Khoja
Muslims and Kutchi Memons are examples for this. The Kutchi Memons
worshipped Hindu Gods and Ali is their tenth avatar instead of Kalki. They had the
inheritance laws as per Hindus and also the marriage laws as per Hindus. When a
common Muslim Personal law was formed; there were many minority creeds of
Muslims who had to accept these laws though they differed from their practices.
There was no need of respecting the sentiments of the minorities (among Muslims)
then. If this can be done for minority creeds of Muslims, why cant the minority
Muslims adapt the laws for the nation? Much was debated on this issue at the
Indian Parliament in 1948 by Ambedkar, Anantasayam Iyengar, KMMunshiji,
Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer favoring UCC and members from other religions
opposing it. On 23rd Nov1948, in Parliament, a Muslim member gave an open
challenge that India will never be the same if it tried to bring in Uniform
Civil code and interfere with Muslim personal law. Its a shame that we could not
do anything on this till date! I even doubt whether we had any subsequent debates
in this regard at Parliament. The Hindu laws that were different in different parts of
the country had undergone a turbulent change, courtesy, geographically united
India. The appreciable factor is Hindus accepted these changes of laws with grace.
Child marriages were banned, Sati was banned, widow re-marriage was
encouraged, divorce was introduced, in heritance laws were amended and Hindus

accepted all these changes. They never complained of hurting their religious
sentiments. Those who oppose this law claim that this law is poking nose into
their religious practices. Narabali (human sacrifice), that was considered a
religious practice of Hindus is banned today. Hindus never protested this stating
that their religious practices are tampered with. There are Muslim countries that
follow Islamic laws. Still, the laws differ from one country to another. This
emphasizes that along with the personal laws, there has to be laws that should be
written considering the changing phenomenon and the living style of the nation.
Once again it is reiterated that this code is not biased towards are religion but to
bring in a level playing platform among the citizens of India. Muslims in other
countries accept uniform civil laws where they do not consider this as a defeat
whereas in India it is. This is the result of the selective secularism adapted by the
political parties, media and the so-called learned men of India. It is a pity that in a
democratic & secular state, people have different laws based on their religion. Is it
secular to have different laws for different religion or it is secular to have a
uniform law? The approach of selective secularism had perpetuated the vertical
divide among the people of India in the name of religion. This resulted in people
having prejudice over this law itself. By bringing this code, neither the majority
public wins over the minorities nor are the minorities in danger. Unless this
prejudice is erased, bringing this law is difficult. The leaders of this country owe
responsibility to explain this to public & an elaborate debate has to be held on this
topic (which will never happen as this is against secularism?).To make this debate
on UCC healthy, Hindus should not treat this as a weapon against minorities.
Meanwhile, the minorities should not feel that they lose by bringing this law.
9. Implementation at StateLevel: Analysis Even though a nation-wide Civil Code is not yet in place, a
positive step in this direction has already been taken. The state of Goa has enacted
a setoff Family Laws, which is applicable to all communities; Hindus, Christians,
Muslims and others. There is no discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or
gender. The Goa civil code is largely based on the Portuguese civil code of 1867,
with some modifications based on the Portuguese Decrees on Marriage and
Divorce of 1910, the Portuguese Decrees on Canonical Marriages of 1946, and the
Portuguese Gentle Hindu Usages Decrees of 1880. It includes laws governing
marriage and divorce, succession, guardianship, property, domicile, possession,
etc. Muslim fundamentalists opposed its enactment in the early 1980s but their
attempts to introduce Sharia law in Goa were ultimately met with defeat by liberal
Muslims who insisted on the continuance of the unified civil code. Former Chief
Justice Y.V.Chandrachud expressed hope that the Goan Civil Code would one day
awaken the rest of bigoted India and inspire it to emulate Goa. There are two

important aspects of this code which assume great significance in the context of
codification of Indian laws:
Civil registration of marriage is mandatory. Around 98 percent of Goan marriages
take place under Community Property law by virtue of which, each spouse
automatically acquires joint ownership of all assets already in their possession as
well as those due to them by inheritance. These assets may not be disposed of or
encumbered in any way by one spouse without the express consent of the other.

The registration of births and deaths is also mandatory. The children of deceased
parents fall in the category of mandatory heirs. They cannot be disinherited
whether male or female, except under extraordinary circumstances. If the deceased
parent leaves no will, all mandatory heirs are entitled to an equal share of the estate
of the deceased. If the deceased has made a will, he may only dispose of 50 percent
of the estate. This is called the quota disponivel. The remaining50 percent must be
divided equally among all mandatory heirs. Such a provision ensures the just
distribution of assets among all children, whether male or female.