Why Women Must Make a Will in India: Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act Explained

image by pavel-danilyuk

Women in India today earn, invest and own property in their own names, yet estate planning—particularly the making of a Will—continues to be overlooked. A recent Supreme Court order in Snidha Mehra v. Union of India has once again brought into focus a legal reality that is often misunderstood: if a Hindu woman dies without a Will, her property may devolve in a manner that does not reflect her intentions.

The governing framework is found in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 15 lays down the rules of succession where a Hindu woman dies intestate. Where she leaves behind no husband or children, Section 15(1)(b) provides that her property devolves first upon the heirs of her husband, and only thereafter upon her own parents under Section 15(1)(c). This statutory sequence applies irrespective of whether the property was self-acquired. The result is that even property earned solely by the woman during her lifetime may pass to her husband’s family before reaching her own.

This position is often counterintuitive because it conflates two distinct concepts: ownership during lifetime and devolution after death. A Hindu woman may have absolute ownership over her property, including stridhan and self-acquired assets. However, in the absence of a Will, the law does not look to intention; it applies a fixed statutory order. This principle was clearly affirmed by the Supreme Court in Omprakash v. Radhacharan, where the Court held that even self-acquired property of a Hindu woman devolves under Section 15(1) if she dies intestate. The Court emphasised that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of property in this context, and that clear legislative language must prevail.

What is significant is that this is not a newly identified issue. The position was settled as far back as 2009, and yet it continues to arise. The recent order in Snidha Mehra does not alter the law but acknowledges the realities of the present day, where women increasingly hold substantial self-acquired assets through education, employment and entrepreneurship. The Court noted the potential for inequity where even remote heirs of the husband may succeed ahead of the woman’s own parents, and it expressly advised women to execute Wills to safeguard their intentions. It also directed that certain disputes involving claims by parents or their heirs should first be referred to pre-litigation mediation, an acknowledgment of how frequently such conflicts arise in practice.

The continuity between Omprakash in 2009 and Snidha Mehra in 2025 is striking. The same statutory framework has been applied, the same consequences have followed, and the same concerns have been noted. Yet, the law itself remains unchanged. In that context, the more realistic approach is not to anticipate legislative reform but to recognise the limits of the existing framework. When the law does not change, the individual must.

For women who own property, a Will is not merely a document of convenience but the only effective means of ensuring that their estate devolves according to their wishes. It allows a woman to determine who inherits her assets, whether those beneficiaries are her parents, siblings or others of her choosing, and it removes the uncertainty and potential conflict that arises when succession is left to statutory rules. Without a Will, the law operates mechanically, often producing outcomes that bear little relation to personal relationships or expectations.

The broader point is that estate planning is an integral part of financial independence. While women today participate fully in economic life and accumulate assets in their own right, the legal framework governing intestate succession does not always reflect this shift. The Supreme Court’s recent observations serve as a reminder of that gap. The solution, however, lies not in waiting for the law to evolve, but in taking control of succession planning during one’s lifetime. A Will ensures that a woman’s intentions are given legal effect. In its absence, those intentions are replaced by statutory assumptions.

The legal position has remained consistent for over fifteen years. It was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Omprakash v. Radhacharan and has now been reiterated in Snidha Mehra v. Union of India. And yet, the statutory framework under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 remains unchanged. In such a scenario, reliance on a future change in law is neither practical nor prudent. When the law does not change, the individual must. For women who own property, a Will is not merely advisable—it is the only effective means of ensuring that their estate devolves in accordance with their wishes.