Children From Void Marriages Entitled To Birth Registration, To Be Acknowledged Under Law: HP High Court

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the case, emphasized the inherent rights of children to be acknowledged under the law, remarking, “The fact that they are living beings and are there needs to be acknowledged in law.” Justice Dua clarified that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act protects the legitimacy of children born from legally invalid marriages, establishing that the void nature of a marriage does not impact the legal recognition and rights of the children born from such unions.

This decision came in response to a petition filed on behalf of three minor children, seeking their inclusion in the Birth Register and Pariwar Register maintained by their local Panchayat. The Panchayat had previously declined to register the children based on the void status of their parents' marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The respondents argued that under Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, the registration of the children's names in the Panchayat records was impermissible because their parents' marriage could not be formally recognized, as one party had a living spouse at the time of the marriage.

Justice Dua rejected this argument, explaining that Section 4(a) applies solely to the solemnization of marriage and does not affect the status or rights of children born from void marriages. The court emphasized that Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj General Rules obligates the Panchayat to register births, irrespective of the marital circumstances of the parents.

To support its decision, the court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, which established that children born from void marriages are considered legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court in that case held, “Though the marriage may be null and void, a child who is born from the marriage is nonetheless treated as legitimate by sub-section (1) of Section 16.” This precedent was cited to reinforce the principle that children's legal standing should not be compromised by the validity of their parents' marriage.

Additionally, the court drew upon Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, where the Supreme Court emphasized the evolving societal perspective on legitimacy, affirming that children born from void marriages have rights independent of the legal status of their parents' union.

In Revanasiddappa, the Supreme Court observed, “The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus… Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through the process of amendment.” This observation further underpinned the court's stance that the children's entitlement to birth registration should be honoured in line with evolving legal principles.

The Panchayat had also relied on Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, a case where the Supreme Court took a narrower interpretation of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, limiting property rights for children born from void marriages. \

However, Justice Dua highlighted that this interpretation was reexamined in Revanasiddappa, where a broader view of children's rights was adopted, affirming that while such children may have limitations on property rights outside their parents' assets, their legitimacy under the law remains protected.

Concluding the case, the High Court directed the Panchayat to record the names of the petitioners in the Birth and Pariwar Registers within five weeks. Justice Dua emphasized that upholding the children's right to registration aligns with legal mandates and promotes their welfare, ensuring their entitlement to legal identity and societal recognition independent of their parents' marital circumstances.

Case Title: Navya & others Vs State of H.P. & others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 69

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment