Supreme Court clarifies property rights of children from void marriages: Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2023) INSC 783 (01 September 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: What are the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages under Hindu law?

CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Hindu Succession

Case Name: Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs. Mallikarjun & Ors.

Judgment Date: 01 September 2023

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 783

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J

Can children born from void or voidable marriages claim a share in their parents’ ancestral property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question, clarifying the extent of property rights for such children under Hindu law. This judgment interprets key provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, providing much-needed clarity on a contentious issue. The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, delivered a comprehensive ruling that balances the rights of these children with the established principles of Hindu family law.

Case Background

The case arises from a reference to a three-judge bench due to conflicting interpretations of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and its impact on property rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). Several previous decisions of the Supreme Court had differing views on whether children born from void or voidable marriages could inherit ancestral property. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 16(3) of the HMA, which limits the property rights of such children to the property of their parents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The correctness of the decisions in Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, Neelamma v Sarojamma, and Bharatha Matha v R Vijaya Renganathan was doubted by a two-judge bench in Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun. The two-judge bench in Revanasiddappa referred the matter to a larger bench due to the following reasons: Section 16(3) does not specify whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired, and once children are declared legitimate, they should be treated equally with other legitimate children for the purpose of all rights in the property of their parents.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

✓ Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that a marriage is null and void if it contravenes the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv), and (v) of Section 5 of the Act.

✓ Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 outlines the circumstances under which a marriage is voidable and can be annulled by a decree of nullity.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended in 1976, deals with the legitimacy of children born from void and voidable marriages:

“16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.—(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.”

✓ Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, governs the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. The amended section recognizes daughters as coparceners by birth and alters the rules of succession.

✓ Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides the general rules of succession for male Hindus dying intestate.

✓ Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 outlines the distribution of property among Class I heirs.

✓ Section 3(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 defines “related” as related by legitimate kinship, with a proviso that illegitimate children are deemed related to their mother and to one another.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be broadly categorized into two opposing viewpoints:

Expansive Interpretation (Favoring the Children):

• Children legitimized under Section 16(3) of the HMA should be treated as legitimate for the purpose of partition within the branch of the father. After the larger coparcenary is partitioned, the property coming to the father should be divided among all his children, including those legitimized under Section 16(3).
• The purpose of the 1976 amendment was not just to remove the stigma but to treat all legitimate children equally, including coparcenary rights.
• Section 16(3) doesn’t qualify “property” as ancestral or self-acquired, so inserting such a qualification would be judicial overreach.
• The legislative intent of Act 68 of 1976 is to treat all legitimate children equally, as coparceners.
• Section 2 of the HSA makes the Act, including Section 6, applicable to children born out of void/voidable marriages. The law does not intend different treatment among legitimate children.
• The latter part of Section 16(3) refers to the law before the HSA, where all children from the same male ancestor were considered coparceners regardless of legitimacy.
• A limited reading of Section 16(3) violates the property rights of children born out of void or voidable marriages under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Restrictive Interpretation (Limiting Rights of the Children):

• There is a difference between conferring legitimacy and elevating to the status of a coparcener. Section 16 grants legitimacy, while Section 16(3) limits inheritance rights.
• Article 14 of the Constitution allows reasonable classification, justifying different treatment for children from various marriages.
• The legislative intent behind Section 16 is to confer legitimacy and inheritance rights, but limited to parental property, excluding coparcenary property.
• Parliament has intervened multiple times to address inheritance rights of legitimized children, indicating a clear legislative intent to limit their rights to parental property.
• The 1976 Amendment was intended to clarify and reinforce the limited scope of inheritance rights under Section 16.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

✓ Whether a child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the HMA is, by reason of Section 16(3), entitled to the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents or is the child merely entitled to the self-earned/separate property of the parents.

The court also considered:

✓ Whether the legislative intent is to confer legitimacy on a child covered by Section 16 in a manner that makes them coparceners.

✓ At what point does a specific property transition into becoming the property of the parent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several legal authorities in its judgment:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to a share in their parents’ property, including the share the parent receives in a notional partition of coparcenary property. However, these children do not become coparceners by birth and cannot claim rights in the property of any person other than their parents.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court distinguished the earlier decisions in Jinia Keotin [2003] 1 SCC 730, Neelamma [2006] 9 SCC 612, and Bharatha Matha [2010] 11 SCC 483, noting that they took a narrow view of Section 16(3).

✓ The Court followed the principles of notional partition as explained in Gurupad Khandappa [1978] 3 SCC 383 and applied it to the present case.

✓ The Court relied on Vineeta Sharma [2020] 9 SCC 1 to explain the rights of daughters as coparceners by birth.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages with the established principles of Hindu family law. The Court was guided by the following:

• The legislative intent behind Section 16 of the HMA was to remove the stigma of illegitimacy from such children and to provide them with rights in their parents’ property.
• The Court recognized that the concept of a coparcenary is a creature of law, and it cannot be altered by judicial interpretation.
• The Court emphasized the importance of harmonizing the provisions of the HMA and the HSA to ensure that the rights of children are protected without disrupting the established framework of Hindu law.
• The Court acknowledged that while the relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law, the birth of a child in such a relationship must be viewed independently.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that children under Section 16(3) should be treated as coparceners by birth. The Court reasoned that coparcenary is a legal concept with specific connotations, and Section 16(3) does not intend to alter this. The Court also rejected the argument that the term “property” in Section 16(3) includes ancestral property, as this would contradict the intent of the section to limit the rights of such children to the property of their parents.

The Court considered the argument that a limited reading of Section 16(3) violates the property rights of the children under Article 300A of the Constitution of India but held that the interpretation of the provisions is in accordance with the law and does not violate any constitutional rights.

The Court emphasized that the interpretation of Section 16(3) must be based on the constitutional values of equality of status and opportunity as well as individual dignity. However, the Court also noted that the interpretation must be in accordance with the law and not against the legislative intent.

The Court clarified that the children are entitled to a share in their parents’ property, which includes the share that the parent would receive in a notional partition of coparcenary property. The Court also clarified that such children do not become coparceners by birth and cannot claim rights in the property of any person other than their parents.

The Court also addressed the contradictions in the referring judgment, clarifying that while children under Section 16(3) are treated as legitimate, their rights are limited to the property of their parents and they do not become coparceners by birth.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The interpretation of Section 16(3) must be based on the constitutional values of equality of status and opportunity as well as individual dignity.”

“The provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be harmonized with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA 1955 which indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub- sections (1) and (2) will not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents.”

“The property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub- section (3) , as interpreted above.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

✓ Children born from void or voidable marriages are legally recognized as legitimate.

✓ These children have a right to their parents’ self-acquired property.

✓ They are also entitled to a share in the property that would have been allotted to their parent in a notional partition of coparcenary property.

✓ However, they do not become coparceners by birth and cannot claim rights in the property of any person other than their parents.

Directions

The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court was directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to the Registrars (Judicial) of all the High Courts. The High Courts were directed to ensure that all pending cases involving the issues decided in this judgment are listed for hearing and disposal before the assigned benches.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to a share in their parents’ property, including the share the parent receives in a notional partition of coparcenary property. This interpretation harmonizes the provisions of the HMA and the HSA, ensuring that the rights of such children are protected without disrupting the established principles of Hindu family law. This judgment clarifies the position of law by holding that these children are not coparceners by birth.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun provides crucial clarity on the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages under Hindu law. While affirming their legitimacy and right to inherit from their parents, the Court has clarified that they do not become coparceners by birth. This ruling balances the need to protect vulnerable children with the established principles of Hindu family law, offering a comprehensive and nuanced interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.