Give the list of heirs of a deceased married Hindu female as provided in Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down a comprehensive yet carefully structured scheme for the devolution of a Hindu woman's property when she dies without a will. The scheme is not a simple list of relatives — it is a five-tiered hierarchy of entries, each being a distinct category of heirs, where those in an earlier entry entirely exclude those in every subsequent one.

The Foundation: Section 15(1)

The section first divides all possible heirs into five entries, described as Entries (a) to (e). The governing principle, stated in Section 16, Rule 1, is absolute — heirs in Entry (a) exclude heirs in Entry (b), heirs in Entry (b) exclude Entry (c), and so on. This is not a scheme of co-existence between categories; it is one of strict preference and total exclusion.

Entry (a) — The Primary Heirs

The first and most preferred category comprises:

• Sons

• Daughters

• Children of any predeceased son or daughter (both sons and daughters of such predeceased children)

• Husband

All these heirs take simultaneously and in equal shares — except that children of a predeceased son or daughter take per stirpes, meaning they collectively step into the shoes of their deceased parent and divide that parent's share among themselves, in accordance with Section 16, Rule 2.

Entry (b) — Heirs of the Husband

On the complete absence of all Entry (a) heirs, the property devolves upon the heirs of the husband. This is not a named person but an entire class of persons — those who would inherit the husband's property had he died intestate on the date of the woman's death. The succession is thus fictionally treated as if the property belonged to the husband and he died at that moment, bringing in the full scheme of Sections 8–13, including Class I heirs, Class II heirs, agnates, and cognates of the husband.

Entry (c) — Mother and Father

Only when no heir of the husband survives does the property move to the intestate's own parents — the mother and father — who take simultaneously and equally. Both natural and adoptive parents are included, but a stepmother or stepfather does not qualify under this entry directly, though they may succeed as heirs of the father under Entry (d).

Entry (d) — Heirs of the Father

Failing both the parents, the property devolves upon the heirs of the father, determined as if the father had himself died intestate at that very moment. This effectively brings in the woman's brothers, sisters, paternal grandparents, and their descendants as potential heirs — the entire range of a male intestate's heirs — through the fiction of the father as propositus.

Entry (e) — Heirs of the Mother

The last resort is the heirs of the mother, ascertained in the same fictional manner — as if the mother were the propositus dying intestate on the date of the woman's death. This opens the door to uterine brothers and sisters and their descendants, among others.

The Exception: Section 15(2)

Section 15(2) carves out two significant departures from the general order, but its operation is strictly confined to cases where the female intestate dies without leaving any son, daughter, or children of a predeceased son or daughter. If she has any such issue, Section 15(2) simply does not apply.

• Clause (a): Property inherited by her from her father or mother does not devolve upon the husband or his heirs; instead, it reverts to the heirs of the father.

• Clause (b): Property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law does not go to her parents or their heirs; it reverts to the heirs of the husband from whom she had inherited.

The word inherited is critical. Property received by way of gift or under a Will from these relatives is treated as general property and governed only by Section 15(1). Only succession-based acquisition triggers Section 15(2).

A Quick Reference

The Anomaly Scholars Note

The placement of the husband's heirs in Entry (b) — immediately after the children, and ahead even of the woman's own parents — has been widely criticised as reflecting a patriarchal bias. As the Supreme Court was constrained to observe in Om Prakash v. Radha Charan (AIR 2009 SC 1426), a childless widow who had been abandoned by her in-laws still had her property taken by those very in-laws as heirs of the husband, her own mother being entirely excluded. The court acknowledged the injustice but treated it as a matter for Parliament to correct. This remains one of the more glaring inequities in the existing scheme.