just didn't want this to slide by.

maybe it is too little, too late. but it's a process, andl i hope is that it will just continue.

- http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2005/dec/dec16/news03.php

(- http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=60101)

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that women are not required to obtain consent from their father, husband, son and unmarried daughter, if they want to sell and hand over ownership of their property.

A three-member bench of justices Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Badri Kumar Basnet and Kalyan Shrestha scrapped Section 2 of the Women’s Property Chapter of Civil Code 1963, which prevents women from using property without the consent of guardian their husbands, fathers or sons.

The bench ordered the government to review two other provisions in the Parental Property Chapter of the Civil Code which says that parental property should not be given to married daughters and that such property can revert even after giving, as per Section 1(a) and 16 of the Parental Property Chapter in the line with the right to equality as guaranteed by the 1990 Constitution empowering women to sell their properties as per their wish.

The Court gave the order acting upon two separate petitions filed by Lili Thapa and advocate Prakashmani Sharma.

The petitioner had claimed the provisions were discriminatory because Article 11 of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality of the people.

In a similar historic decision, the SC, on November 29 had ruled that women under 35 are not required to obtain their parent’s or husband’s consent to apply for a passport. nepalnews.com pb Dec 16 05

This is great. Congratulations all.

One concern I have is that most of the Nepali women who could really benefit from this law have no access to the judiciary at all. For an average woman in an average Nepali village, it costs a lot (in terms of money, other resources, and most of all, male reprehension) to seek justice from a court of law. A vast majority of rural women in Nepal do not feel it in their interest to challenge men. Pretty much because men can crush them into a complete social non-existence. :-(

We need to educate both men and women in the villages.

It's about time.

While this ruling is loudable, it also brings the memory of a bitter sweet tale of Woman's property right movement that started in 1993 with filing of a case in the Supreme Court demanding amends in the Civil Code to give women equal rights over property.

Two years later, SC issued a directive to the government to introduce a bill within a year to guarantee the equal property right to women. This was followed by unprecedented public debate on the issue, the magnitude of which showed, for the first time in this way, that we have indeed entered into a democratic era.

After innumerable public debates and revisions by parliamentary committee, the bill took a final shape in 2001 to grant women the equal property right. Then something happened, that basically demonstrated the ruling party, Nepali Congress', shocking anti-progressive character and aborted the social revolution the bill was about to bring. NC forced to introduce a provision that forced girls to return the inherited property to the parent if they ever decided to marry.

NC succeeded to keep male domination and chauvinism of our society preserved, thanks to the great leaders the party is run by.

It feels strange to see that it took a time of King's autocratic rule and SC's judicial intervention to question the barrier forced upon by Nepali Congress 4 years ago.

Some reference to the history of Women's propert right bill:

- http://www.nepaldemocracy.org/gender/property_rights_movement.htm
- http://www.cld.org/wprnilaw.htm
- http://www.isiswomen.org/wia/wia199/eco00006.html

no, no, nepe ji. don't credit the king's rule.

the SC has been pondering on and making these rulings for quite some time now. to rectify the good that could not be done in 2001.

What more-jee,

Of course I am not giving the credit to King's autocratic rule. I was just looking at the irony of timing.