This case is concerned with an issue weather a child born out of void or voidable marriage shall be given right to property of their parents or not.
This case deals with if an illegitimate child is qualified to inherit the tribal property under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. And, whether the child would be given right in the property of his parents only or their ancestral property as well.
The defendant filed a case in the trial court, order dated 23/11/2005. The court held that the plaintiff along with other defendants were entitled to equal share of 1/6th each in ancestral property. The plaintiff, not being satisfied by the judgement appealed before the High Court of Karnataka. The issue raised in the High Court were:
- Whether the illegitimate child born out of void marriage are regarded as coparceners by virtue of the amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
- At a partition between the coparceners whether they are entitled to a share in the said property?
Plaintiff claim right to partition against other coparcener, right to partition was given to first defendant, but other defendants were not entitled to right in partition but were only entitled to the separate property of their father. The High Court observed that upon partition, when the first defendant got his share of partition, then the other defendant would be entitled to share on his dying intestate, but by the time he is living they would have no right in the property. Hence, the High Court held that the first plaintiff would be entitled to 1/3rd share in property. The Conclusion inferred was Right to property is no longer fundamental but is a constitutional right.
In 2010, it was held that illegitimate child is only entitled to their father’s self-acquired property and not in his ancestral property, this was led down in Bharatha Matha and anr V. R Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.
This was in 2011, when the verdict was given by two-judge bench led by G.S Singhvi and A.K Ganguly, JJ., in Revanasiddappa & Anr. V. Mallikarjun & Ors. wherein it was held that children born out of void or voidable marriages are entitled to inherit both ancestral and self-acquired property of their parents. This case brought an amendment in Section 16(30) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The disagreement in both the above case led to the matter being referred to at a large bench.
Recently, in September 2023 A three judge bench of Supreme court led by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, reversed its earlier decision and gave verdict that an illegitimate child would only be entitled to their parents property and not in ancestral property.
Issues raised
- Whether a child born out of void or voidable marriage must be given right to property of their parents?
- Whether an illegitimate child is qualified to inherit tribal property under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
- Whether such child born out of void or voidable marriage should be given right over ancestral property or not?
Contention
By Plaintiff
The plaintiff argued that the property given to the defendent was an ancestral property. And the share in the property must not be given to the defendant. Rather, no property is to be given to the defendant as it comes under ancestral property.
By Defendant
The defendent argued that the property acquired were not ancestral property, rather it is property owned by his deceased parent. They asked that the property belonging to deceased parents must be transferred to them.
Rationale
The judgement made by three judge bench states that the children born from void or voidable marriage is entitled to a share in the property of their parents, but not in the ancestral property of the family. And, thus brings a change in interpretation of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act.
The main issue raised before supreme court was whether an illegitimate child can claim share in ancestral property, even when their parent’s marriage is considered invalid.
The supreme court said that the child shouldn’t be suffered due to invalidity of their parent’s marriage. The court further made a change in Section 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which state that the child born out of voidable marriage would get the rights of a legitimate child and the same right of legitimacy is given to the children born from void marriage under Section 16(1). It is very important to note that the rights given is only limited to properties of child parents, this does not mean that the marriage of their parents is considered valid. Thus, led to the right to the property of their parents and not the ancestral property.
Relevance of this case in Legal System
This case brings about a huge impact in rights given to an illegitimate child and would help to provide right to property to the children without infringing the right of the other family member living in the family. By giving the children right in parents property and not inherited property.
Defects of Law
In Bharatha Matha and anr V. R Vijaya Renganathan & Ors, 2010, it was held that the child born out of void and voidable marriage is entitled to parent’s self-acquired property but not ancestral property. But, in just one year, in 2011, the Supreme Court of India gave judgement that an illegitimate child is entitled to both self-acquired and ancestral property in Revanasiddappa V. Mallikarjuna. However, the case was over ruled and was transferred to a larger bench.
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, state that the legitimacy of the children born from void or voidable marriage. Section 16(1) and Section 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act give right of legitimacy to children born out of void or voidable marriage. And, Section 16(3) of the same Act, state that such children do not have any right in the property other than the property self-acquired by their parents.
Inference
From my opinion, the judgement passed by the Supreme court gives the clarity on whether the children born through void or voidable agreement is entitled to right in ancestral property or not. The child born through invalid marriage is not the fault of the child it is the fault of their parents so why the right of the children should be infringed. This case lays down a principle that every child whether legitimate or illegitimate is entitled to right in property under Hindu Law.
This judgement brings an end to the old system of injustice that was given to an illegitimate child and promotes social justice. This ensures that a child born, under whatever circumstances must not suffer any consequences. This is done to protect the right of innocent children. This judgement laid down by the supreme court of India promotes equality of the illegitimate child and brings the adequate change in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgement passed by the court is fair in my opinion that only the property of their parents could be transferred to them and not the ancestral property thereby, protecting the right of other members in the family. This also lays down that law must adapt to changes when need and amendment is needed in laws. It also teaches that legal education and awareness is important as it ensures that these rights protect the right of children.
Ojaswi Chandrakar
Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College, Pune