Children Of Invalid Marriages Have Right In Their Parents' Share In Hindu Joint Family Property : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 1) pronounced a judgment recognizing the rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property.

The Court held that children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents.

The Court clarified that this ruling is applicable only to Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law.

A 3-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was hearing a reference against the two-judge bench judgment in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011), which had held that children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit their parents' properties, whether self-acquired or ancestral.

The issue in the case related to the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which confers legitimacy to children who are born out of invalid marriages. Section 16(3) states such children are entitled to inherit only their parents' property and will have no right over the other coparcenary shares.

The primary issue in the reference was when can the property be held to be that of the parent in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Hindu Mitakshara law.  Answering the reference, the bench explained that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the interest of coparceners in a Hindu Mitakshara property is defined to be the share of the property that would have been allotted to them if the partition of the property had taken place immediately before their death. The Court has held that children born out of invalid marriages are entitled to such property which would devolve upon their parents on a notional partition on their death.

"For the purpose of ascertaining the interest of a deceased Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, the law mandates the assumption of a state of affairs immediately prior to the death of the coparcener, namely a partition of the coparcenary property between the deceased and other members of the coparcenary. Once the share of the deceased in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death is ascertained, his heirs, including the children who have been conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, will be entitled to their share in the property which would have been allotted to the deceased upon the notional partition if it had taken place", Chief Justice DY Chandrachud read out the operative portion of the judgment.

The Court further held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act have to be harmonised with the mandate of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which indicates that a child who has been conferred with legitimacy will not be entitled to rights in the properties of any person other than the parents. The "property of the parent", where the parent had an interest in the Hindu Mitakshara law, has to be ascertained in terms of the above interpretation. Thus, the Court clarified that such children cannot be treated as a copercener by birth in the HUF family.

While reserving the judgement, CJI DY Chandrachud had remarked that the issue primarily pertained to the intersection between Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA). For context, Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the HMA grant legitimacy to children born out of void or voidable marriages respectively. However, Section 16(3) provides that the aforementioned provisions of Section 16 do not provide children of void or voidable marriages "any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents". Section 6 of the HSA provides for the devolution of interest in coparcenary property.

Two opposing views arose from the arguments raised before the bench.

First, that the Hindu Marriage Act was a beneficial legislation and its intent was to confer social status of legitimacy on a group of innocent children who were otherwise treated as illegitimate. Further, no child should be considered 'illegitimate' as it was the marriages which resulted in the bearing of such children which had a degree of illegitimacy, not the child. Thus, the status of legitimacy given to children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act also provided them a right in their parents' ancestral property.

The opposing view that arose in the matter was that the legitimacy conferred on a child by Section 16 did not mean that the said child could be raised at the level of a coparcener as a coparcener property in Hindu succession, depended upon 'survivorship' and not 'succession'. It was stated that a plain and literal interpretation of Section 16 was to be adopted in the matter to the safeguard the intent of the legislation. Further, it was submitted that self acquired property of the parents, divorced by succession and not by survivorship, could be inherited by illegitimate children. However, restoration of legitimacy on the child should not allow the invasion on the rights of other innocent coparceners. Stating that a reasonable classification existed between children born out of a void or voidable marriage and a valid marriage, it was argued that not providing illegitimate children with rights in coparcener property was a 'balancing act'.

Click here to read the judgment