The Illusion Of Matriarchy- Understanding The Place Of Women In Inheritance Laws

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Family & Personal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:21:24.171556+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:43.722+00:00

THE ILLUSION OF MATRIARCHY- UNDERSTANDING THE

PLACE OF WOMEN IN INHERITANCE LAWS

Gauri Nandakumar Varma, O.P. Jindal Global Law School

A SYSTEM WHERE PROPERTY FLOWS THROUGH WOMEN - INTRODUCTION

The law of succession, or inheritance law, is integral to a nation's legal framework and varies across jurisdictions. In India, multiple succession laws reflect its diverse customs and traditions. Among these, the Marumakkathayam and Aliyasantana systems, historically practiced in Travancore-Cochin, Malabar, and South Kanara, were matrilineal, with inheritance and lineage traced through the maternal line. This contrasts with the globally predominant patriarchal lineage system. Marumakkathayam dictated that property and lineage passed through a person's sister’s children, with nephews and nieces inheriting instead of direct descendants. In this system, a maternal uncle, rather than the father, was the legal guardian.

Predominantly followed by the Nair community in Kerala, it is believed to have emerged due to Nair men’s engagement in warfare and possibly the prevalence of polyandry in ancient times. Codified under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932, its legal recognition was affirmed in K. K. Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala1, where the Supreme Court outlined its key features. The tarwad, the joint family unit, comprised a mother, her children, and their descendants. The Sthanee or Karnavan, usually the senior-most male, controlled the Sthanam, an impartible property distinct from tarwad assets. While succession followed a defined hierarchy, a female could assume the role in the absence of an eligible male. Despite its matrilineal nature, the Marumakkathayam system remained patriarchal, as decisionmaking authority rested largely with men.

This male-dominated structure led to its abolition under the Kerala Joint Hindu Family (Abolition) Act2, after which the Hindu

1 K. K. Kochuni v States of Madras and Kerala, 1960 AIR 1080.

2 Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975.

Succession Act3 became the governing law. This paper examines whether the Marumakkathayam system, despite its matrilineal structure, reinforced patriarchal dominance and briefly assesses whether the HSA4 effectively advanced gender equality in inheritance laws. MATRIARCHY OR A MYTH?

Under the Marumakkathayam Act, a woman's self-acquired or separate property primarily passed to her children and their lineal descendants in the female line. If she had no such heirs, her mother’s Thavazhi inherited, followed by her husband and maternal grandmother’s Thavazhi, each receiving half. In the absence of these heirs, the property devolved upon more distant female ancestors’ Thavazhies, with nearer kin excluding the remote. For a Marumakkathayee male, his children, widow, and mother inherited simultaneously, each receiving one share. If there were no children, his mother and widow shared the estate equally, 5and in their absence, the property passed to his maternal relatives, ensuring assets remained within the female lineage. 5 While the Marumakkathayam system appeared to grant women significant autonomy, it was not truly matriarchal.

The karnavan, as defined in Section 3(c) of the Marumakkathayam Act6, was the eldest male member of a tarwad or tavazhi who had exclusive rights to manage family property. A woman could assume this role only in the absence of an eligible male, highlighting the system’s inherent male dominance. Legal precedents have affirmed that a female member could manage the tarwad only when no competent male was available. 7 This provision positioned women as a last resort rather than equal participants in governance. The karnavan exercised near-absolute control over family assets, acting as the de facto proprietor8. Within the tarwad, he held substantial financial and social influence over his nieces and nephews. His authority was rarely questioned as long as he administered family affairs

3 Hindu Succession Act 1956.

4 Ibid.

5 K. Sreedhara Variar, Marumakkathayam and Allied Systems of Law in the Kerala State (K. Sreedhara Variar

1969) 111.

6 Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932, s 3(c).

7 K. Sreedhara Variar, Marumakkathayam and Allied Systems of Law in the Kerala State (K. Sreedhara Variar

1969) 36.

8 Ibid 49.

with integrity. Although karars or family agreements could limit his powers, he retained discretionary control over settlements in disputed claims. Furthermore, a junior member had no legal right to challenge or remove the karnavan, and if unlawfully dispossessed, he could reclaim his position and property, including mesne profits. As the head of the tarwad, he was entitled to cultivate lands under his possession and control its produce9 . Traditionally, he could grant fixed-term leases, including kanam demises and their renewals, though later statutes restricted these powers, requiring family consent. The karnavan also financially benefited from his position. In the Cochin region, he was entitled to 25% of the net realized income, capped at ₹800, after deducting tarwad expenses such as debt interest. At the end of each year, he could appropriate this sum as his personal property10.

Oral histories and primary research reveal that Nair women were largely excluded from major family decisions. 11 The tarwad’s structural organization, where women had separate living spaces, may have contributed to their limited involvement. 12 Even when household essentials like food and supplies were insufficient, family members refrained from questioning the karnavan, fearing his displeasure. 13 Despite the perceived advantages of matriliny for women, the system remained deeply entrenched in patriarchal control. In Kalliyani Amma Bhavani Amma13, the court held that property acquired by a female through an outright partition becomes her separate property and does not retain the characteristics of tarwad or tavazhi property.

The court further ruled that once a tavazhi is partitioned, it ceases to exist, and the subsequent birth of a child does not revert the property into tavazhi ownership. This judgment overruled the 195414 decision, which had established that the birth of a child automatically converts separate property into tavazhi property and affirmed that property obtained by a Nair female on partition retained the character of tarwad property. However, the ruling in Kalliyani Amma Bhavani Amma15 was subsequently overturned in Mary

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid 57.

Cherian16, where the court held that property acquired by a Nair female in a tarwad partition retains its original tarwad character. Consequently, her children born post-partition were recognized as having rights by birth, thereby establishing a newly formed sub-tarwad. This decision reinforced the principle that such property did not constitute the woman’s individual estate, but rather belonged collectively to the reconstituted lineage. The court, in reaffirming the application of Marumakkathayam law, drew parallels with the Mitakshara system, wherein ancestral property is subject to rights by birth. For an extended period, this judicial precedent curtailed women’s property rights, effectively nullifying the intended benefits of the matrilineal system.

Women were deprived of both decision-making authority and sole proprietary rights over partitioned land, underscoring the patriarchal bias inherent in legal interpretations. The Mary Cherian17 ruling was eventually overturned in Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors. 18, wherein the court clarified that if a female inherits property and has no descendants at the time of partition, the property remains her absolute individual estate. However, if she has a legal heir, it would still be considered tarwad property.

COLONIAL SHADOWS THAT END MATRILINY

British colonial rule played a crucial role in dismantling Kerala’s matrilineal inheritance system. The spread of Western education among the local elite, combined with British legal traditions and Victorian moral values, led many to view matriliny as outdated. Legal experts trained in British law argued that female centered inheritance conflicted with established property norms favoring male ownership.19 A series of legislative measures, restructured inheritance rights, allowing the karnavan to pass

property to his children rather than maternal relatives. The shift not only altered property distribution but also redefined gender roles, pushing women to the margins of economic power. The Kerala government's enactment of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act21 1976, formally abolished the matrilineal system. Although matriliny had been gradually

16 Mary Cheriyan And Anr. v Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi And Anr., AIR1968KER82.

17 Ibid.

eroding since the early 20th century, families that had not undergone formal partition were still legally recognized as joint families and continued to hold joint family property until the passage of this legislation. Following its implementation, each member of the erstwhile tarwad was reclassified as a co-tenant in a shared tenancy, effectively dismantling the traditional structure of matrilineal inheritance.

THE 1956 ACT

The Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 195620, was enacted well before the formal abolition of matriliny in Kerala. As a national legal framework governing property succession and inheritance, the HSA aimed to standardize the diverse customary laws that had previously regulated inheritance across India. 21 A key objective of the Act was to ensure gender equality in property rights, granting women the same entitlements as men. Under the predominant inheritance systems- Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, women had historically been denied substantial rights over ancestral property. Thus, the enactment of the HSA marked a significant step toward gender equity. Section 14 of the Act conferred absolute ownership of property to women, thereby securing their proprietary rights.

However, despite these advancements, women were initially excluded from assuming the role of Karta within a Hindu joint family, as they were not granted coparcenary rights. This exclusion reinforced patriarchal structures within the inheritance system. The Amendment in 200522, rectified this disparity by granting daughters coparcenary status, thereby enabling them to assume the position of Karta and inherit ancestral property on an equal footing with male heirs. Additionally, the HSA provided for communities previously governed by the Marumakkathayam system through Section 17, which extended special protections to such groups. In Chellamma Kamalamma & Ors. v. Narayana Pillai Prabhakaran Nari23, the court affirmed that, while the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act24 had dismantled matrilineal inheritance, Section 17 of the HSA remained operative.

The court clarified that this provision did not establish a separate system of inheritance but merely designated a specific category of individuals to whom distinct succession rules applied. Consequently, even after the

20 Hindu Succession Act 1956.

21 Acharya M, ‘Hindu Succession Act: Property Rights of Women in India’ (cleartax, 6 June 2024)

accessed 23 March 2025.

22 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005.

23 Chellamma Kamalamma & Ors. v Narayana Pillai Prabhakaran Nari, AIR1993KER146.

24 Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975.

abolition of the Marumakkathayam system in 1975, individuals previously governed by its legal framework continued to be subject to Section 17 of HSA.

A LIBERATION OR A NEW FORM OF PATRIARCHY: A CONCLUSIVE ANALYSIS

In the Marumakkathayam system, property belonging to a tarwad was collectively owned by all its male and female members and the partition of property within the Nair community was traditionally governed by the alohari or the per capita system of inheritance25 i. e. when a partition took place, the division of shares was determined based on the number of female members in the lineage and their male children, while the children of male members were excluded from this distribution. However, occasionally women were given larger shares in property since comparatively more money was spent on men for their education. 26 Women in Kerala, particularly the Nairs enjoyed a high social status and sometimes more liberation unlike in patriarchal societies. Marriages, known as sambandham, were informal unions rather than rigid contractual obligations.

27 Nair women of earlier times, did not experience societal stigma for widowhood, divorce, or even polyandrous relationships like women do nowadays. While all this may look good for women, this system still did not grant them absolute rights or control over partitioned or inherited property until recently, which ultimately has no good use on women after the act was abolished. The HSA, gave a more progressive outlook. , Section 14 ensures that any property acquired by a Hindu female whether before or after the Act, becomes her absolute property, giving her full rights of ownership, disposal, and transfer. This was upheld in Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy28, where the Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu woman’s possession of property, even if initially restricted (such as a widow’s limited estate), transforms into full ownership under Section 14(1).

However, Section 15 undermines the progressive intent of Section 14 by imposing a gendered and patriarchal succession framework for a woman’s self-acquired property. Unlike Hindu men, whose property passes equally to their children, spouse, and paternal relatives, a Hindu woman’s property prioritizes her husband’s heirs over hers, reinforcing the outdated notion that a woman becomes part of her husband’s lineage after marriage. This provision has been widely criticized for failing to recognize a

25 Lekha NB, ‘Gender Bargaining Within Matriliny in Kerala’ (2023) 43(1) South Asia Research 97

26 Ibid.

27 Moothedath Mayadevi, ‘Women and Marriage in Marumakkathayam’ (2015) Vol. 4 (10) International

Research Journal of Social Sciences 32.

28 Tulsamma v Sesha Reddy, 1977 AIR 1944.

woman’s natal family as her primary legal heirs. Furthermore, the practical implications of HSA has not always been favourable to women as they’re often forced to forgo these rights due to social expectations. Similarly, the Marumakkathayam system, despite its communal ownership structure, safeguarded a woman's property within her matrilineal family rather than allowing it to be absorbed into her husband's lineage. However, ultimate authority over familial decisions remained firmly in the hands of men, perpetuating women's subordination. While both these legal frameworks may appear empowering or equitable for women in theory, their practical implications tell a different story.