Kathmandu, October 6
The Supreme Court has scrapped a legal provision requiring a widow to return property inherited from her deceased husband if she remarries.
A Constitutional Bench struck down Sub-section 2 of Section 214 of the National Civil Code, 2017, following a writ petition filed by three organisations, including the Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD).
The provision stated that if a widow remarried, property she had received as her share from her deceased husband’s estate would go to her children from the previous marriage or, in the absence of such children, remain with her.
The bench comprising then Acting Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla and Justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Phuyal, Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma and Dr Nahakul Subedi scrapped the provision on May 4.
The petitioners argued that the provision curtailed rights previously guaranteed to widows under the existing law on partition of property.
The Supreme Court examined the provision against constitutional guarantees of the right to live with dignity, equality and property rights under Articles 16, 18 and 25 of the Constitution.
The court concluded that the provision was inconsistent with these constitutional rights and could discourage widows from remarrying by making them financially vulnerable.
“The requirement to return property received as a share would economically weaken single women and discourage them from remarrying,” the full text of the verdict states.
The court said requiring women to return property solely because they remarried amounted to an unreasonable restriction on their property rights.
It further held that once ownership of the property had been legally established, it should not be taken away merely because a woman’s marital status changed.
The court also found the provision inconsistent with Nepal’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The court said a subsequent law cannot take away, remove or reduce rights or benefits already granted by previous laws and that such a provision cannot be given constitutional validity.
