The Joint Family as a Social Security Institution

In one line

The joint family fed, housed, married off and buried its members long before the State did any of it, and the two statutes that changed it did so from opposite directions.

The joint family as social security

MU's phrase is exact, and the claim behind it should be spelled out before it is criticised.

What the institution actually provided

Maintenance for life. Every member of a joint family, coparcener or not, is entitled to be maintained out of the joint family property. That covers the wives, the widows, the unmarried daughters, the aged, the disabled and the unemployed. It is not charity and it is not discretionary: it is a charge on the estate and the karta's obligation, as set out in [The Karta: Position, Powers, Privileges and Obligations].

Provision for marriage. The marriage expenses of unmarried daughters are a legitimate purpose for which the karta may alienate family property, and they must be provided for out of the estate before a partition divides the residue.

Old age. A parent who could no longer work continued to be maintained by the family as of right.

Care of widows and orphans. A widow who lost her husband did not lose her home: she remained a member of the family, entitled to maintenance and to residence.

Funerals and obsequies, which are among the purposes for which the karta may alienate.

Risk-sharing. Property was held in common and income pooled, so a failed harvest or a member's illness fell on the whole family rather than on one household.

Read as a system, that is a pension, a health scheme, a housing scheme, an unemployment benefit and a dowry fund, all supplied by the family and financed out of the family estate.

The criticisms

An honest answer gives these too, because MU is asking about an institution, not praising one.

It bought security with subordination. The security was real and it was conditional on remaining inside the family and accepting the karta's authority. A member who separated took a share and lost the safety net.

It excluded women from ownership. A woman was maintained, not an owner. She was provided for by the coparcenary and was not part of it, which is precisely what section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act changed in 2005.

It could not survive migration. The system needs a common estate and common residence. Once members moved to cities for wages, the estate stopped being the source of everybody's living, and the obligations survived only as expectations.

The State has had to replace it. The clearest evidence is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, taken in [The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act: the Claim]. Parliament created a tribunal, a summary procedure and a monthly maintenance ceiling to compel children to maintain parents. That statute exists because the joint family stopped doing it by itself.