Meera Kumari Dhungana Vs. Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs et al.
July 31, 2025
min read
Case Details
Decision No: 6013
Decision Date: 2052/04/18 B.S.
Case: Daughter's Property Right
Subject of Writ: Under Article 1 and Article 88(1) of the Constitution – laws inconsistent with the Constitution should be declared void.
Petitioners: Advocate Meera Kumari Dhungana (Age 26) and Meera Khanal (Age 23)
Defendants:
His Majesty's Government (HMG), Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
Council of Ministers Secretariat
House of Representatives, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu
National Assembly, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu
Facts of the Case
Article 11(2) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 guarantees that no discriminatory treatment shall be made against any citizen in the application of general laws on grounds, inter alia, of sex. Despite this constitutional guarantee, a provision in the national code (Muluki Ain) continued to treat sons and daughters differently with regard to inheritance and parental property rights. The petitioners challenged this discriminatory provision and raised two major issues for the Supreme Court to resolve.
Petitioners' Claim
The petitioners contended that the provision under the existing legal framework discriminated against daughters by denying them equal rights to inherit parental property. They argued that such provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equality and therefore must be declared void.
Defendant's Argument
The defendants submitted that Clause No. 16 of the Chapter on Partition required an unmarried daughter to reside in her father's house and be at least 35 years old to claim a share in the parental property. They argued that if this provision were revoked, it would result in daughters receiving property from both their fathers and husbands, while sons would only inherit from their fathers. According to them, this would go against the principle of equality and thus the existing legal provision should remain valid.
Opinion from Amicus Curiae
Senior Advocate Ganesh Raj Sharma, who appeared as an assistant to the court, highlighted the complexities involved in transforming long-standing societal norms. He argued that sudden changes to traditional social behaviors might cause confusion and problems within society. Therefore, he emphasized the need for careful consideration and gradual reform.
Legal Questions
The Court was faced with two critical legal questions: whether Clause 16 of the Chapter on Partition (Angsanbanda) was constitutional, and whether sons and daughters should have equal entitlement to parental property.
Decision of the Case
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Clause No. 16 was discriminatory and that sons and daughters should have equal rights to parental property. However, rather than immediately declaring the provision void, the Court directed the Government of Nepal to introduce an appropriate bill to Parliament within one year. The bill should be drafted with input from recognized women's organizations, sociologists, relevant social bodies, and legal experts. The Court emphasized the need to align the law with international standards and local realities through proper consultation and study.
Principle Established
According to the legal provision prior to the decision, only unmarried women above the age of 35 were entitled to a share in the parental property, and such property had to be returned upon marriage. This was laid out in Clause No. 16 of the Chapter on Partition. However, in 2072 B.S., this discriminatory clause was amended under Muluki Ain, Number 1(a), and no longer discriminates between married and unmarried daughters.
Analysis of the Case
This case vividly illustrated the gender discrimination embedded within Nepalese society. The Supreme Court recognized that Nepal's society had historically been patriarchal, influenced by orthodox beliefs favoring male dominance. Although the Court acknowledged the possible disruptions caused by sudden legal changes, it stressed the importance of conducting comprehensive national and international studies. The Court’s decision became a stepping stone for the 11th Amendment to the Muluki Ain, highlighting the importance of legal reform based on societal research and democratic consultation.
Conclusion
The decision in this case marked a significant milestone in the struggle against traditional gender biases in Nepal. It paved the way for a more equitable legal landscape by emphasizing the role of inclusive and consultative legislative processes. This ruling not only advanced the property rights of women but also demonstrated Nepal's commitment to addressing broader issues of equality, including for the LGBTQI+ community. It reflects the nation's ongoing journey toward full and effective implementation of equality under the law.
Decision No: 6013
Decision Date: 2052/04/18 B.S.
Case: Daughter's Property Right
Subject of Writ: Under Article 1 and Article 88(1) of the Constitution – laws inconsistent with the Constitution should be declared void.
Petitioners: Advocate Meera Kumari Dhungana (Age 26) and Meera Khanal (Age 23)
Defendants:
His Majesty's Government (HMG), Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
Council of Ministers Secretariat
House of Representatives, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu
National Assembly, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu
Facts of the Case
Article 11(2) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 guarantees that no discriminatory treatment shall be made against any citizen in the application of general laws on grounds, inter alia, of sex. Despite this constitutional guarantee, a provision in the national code (Muluki Ain) continued to treat sons and daughters differently with regard to inheritance and parental property rights. The petitioners challenged this discriminatory provision and raised two major issues for the Supreme Court to resolve.
Petitioners' Claim
The petitioners contended that the provision under the existing legal framework discriminated against daughters by denying them equal rights to inherit parental property. They argued that such provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equality and therefore must be declared void.
Defendant's Argument
The defendants submitted that Clause No. 16 of the Chapter on Partition required an unmarried daughter to reside in her father's house and be at least 35 years old to claim a share in the parental property. They argued that if this provision were revoked, it would result in daughters receiving property from both their fathers and husbands, while sons would only inherit from their fathers. According to them, this would go against the principle of equality and thus the existing legal provision should remain valid.
Opinion from Amicus Curiae
Senior Advocate Ganesh Raj Sharma, who appeared as an assistant to the court, highlighted the complexities involved in transforming long-standing societal norms. He argued that sudden changes to traditional social behaviors might cause confusion and problems within society. Therefore, he emphasized the need for careful consideration and gradual reform.
Legal Questions
The Court was faced with two critical legal questions: whether Clause 16 of the Chapter on Partition (Angsanbanda) was constitutional, and whether sons and daughters should have equal entitlement to parental property.
Decision of the Case
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Clause No. 16 was discriminatory and that sons and daughters should have equal rights to parental property. However, rather than immediately declaring the provision void, the Court directed the Government of Nepal to introduce an appropriate bill to Parliament within one year. The bill should be drafted with input from recognized women's organizations, sociologists, relevant social bodies, and legal experts. The Court emphasized the need to align the law with international standards and local realities through proper consultation and study.
Principle Established
According to the legal provision prior to the decision, only unmarried women above the age of 35 were entitled to a share in the parental property, and such property had to be returned upon marriage. This was laid out in Clause No. 16 of the Chapter on Partition. However, in 2072 B.S., this discriminatory clause was amended under Muluki Ain, Number 1(a), and no longer discriminates between married and unmarried daughters.
Analysis of the Case
This case vividly illustrated the gender discrimination embedded within Nepalese society. The Supreme Court recognized that Nepal's society had historically been patriarchal, influenced by orthodox beliefs favoring male dominance. Although the Court acknowledged the possible disruptions caused by sudden legal changes, it stressed the importance of conducting comprehensive national and international studies. The Court’s decision became a stepping stone for the 11th Amendment to the Muluki Ain, highlighting the importance of legal reform based on societal research and democratic consultation.
Conclusion
The decision in this case marked a significant milestone in the struggle against traditional gender biases in Nepal. It paved the way for a more equitable legal landscape by emphasizing the role of inclusive and consultative legislative processes. This ruling not only advanced the property rights of women but also demonstrated Nepal's commitment to addressing broader issues of equality, including for the LGBTQI+ community. It reflects the nation's ongoing journey toward full and effective implementation of equality under the law.
About the Authors
Suveksha Panta
Undergraduate law student at Nepal Law Campus, with a deep interest in social justice, legal writing. Passionate about exploring the intersection of law, society, and lived experiences through research and creative expression.
View all posts by Suveksha Panta