TITLE: REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. V. MALLIKARJUN & ORS.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO 2844 OF 2011
DECIDED ON: 1 SEPTEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACH, JUSTICE JB PARDIWALA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Facts of the Case
The case involves the interpretation and application of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA). Specifically, the focus is on the status and property rights of a child born to parents whose marriage is either null and void under Section 11 of the HMA or annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12. Section 16(1) declares such a child “legitimate” if they would have been legitimate had the marriage been valid. Section 16(2) deals with children born before the annulment decree, deeming them legitimate. However, Section 16(3) restricts the child’s rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. The case refers to previous decisions, particularly the judgment in Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003) 1 SCC 730, where it was held that children born from void or voidable marriages, despite being safeguarded under Section 16, should not be treated on par with children born from lawful marriages concerning inheritance of ancestral property.
Issues Involved
The primary issue is the interpretation of Section 16 of the HMA concerning the legitimacy and property rights of a child born from a marriage declared null and void or annulled. Specifically, the case addresses whether a child from such a marriage has any rights in or to the property of persons other than the parents, as per the restrictions outlined in Section 16(3). The broader issue involves determining the nature of property rights for children born from void or voidable marriages, particularly regarding ancestral or coparcenary property.
Legal Provisions
Section 16(1) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, dealing with the legitimacy of children born from marriages declared null and void or annulled. Section 16(3) of the HMA, restricting the rights of a child from a null or void marriage in or to the property of any person other than the parents.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The court’s judgment provided a nuanced interpretation of key provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) and the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA). Notably, it clarified that children born from marriages declared null and void under Section 16(1) of the HMA, whether before or after the Amending Act 1976, are conferred with legitimacy. For voidable marriages annulled under Section 12, children conceived before the annulment are deemed legitimate under Section 16(2), akin to the rights they would have if the marriage had ended in dissolution. Crucially, the court underscored that children legitimized under Section 16 have exclusive rights in the property of their parents and not in the property of any other individual, ensuring a clear delineation of inheritance rights. The judgment emphasized the interplay between Section 16 of the HMA and Section 3(1)(j) of the HSA. Children legitimized under Section 16 should not be deemed illegitimate for the purposes of the proviso in Section 3(1)(j) of the HSA. Additionally, the court discussed amendments to Section 6 of the HSA in 2005, highlighting the shift from devolution by survivorship to testamentary or intestate succession and the grant of equal coparcenary rights to daughters.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
