⸋BENCH: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD; CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA; J., MANOJ MISRA; J.
⸋EQUIVALENT CITATIONS:
●2011JUDGEMENT:[MANU/SC/0299/2011] [2011(2) KLT 176] [2011 GLH (1) 757] [2011 (I)NCLR (SC) 976]
●2023JUDGEMENT:[MANU/SC/0956/2023] [(2023) 10 SCC 1] [2023 GLH (3) 757] [2023 (4) CCC 64]
⸋PROVISIONS AND STATUES INVOLVED: SECTION 11,12 AND 16 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955; SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956; ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
FACTS OF THE CASE:
●APPELLANT: 1st wife and her two children
●RESPONDENT: Husband, 2nd wife and two children
●TRIAL COURT:
○The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession against defendant asking for 1/4th share for each in Ancestral Property
○To claim that the 2nd marriage of the defendant is also null and void, as his first marriage was subsisting at the time when 2nd marriage took place.
○The plaintiff also claimed that the children out of the 2nd marriage as illegitimate and they are not entitled to get the share in the Ancestral Property.
○The trial court decreed in the favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the illegitimate children don’t have any kind of the share in the Ancestral property, though they have share in the Self- Acquired property in Joint Hindu Family under Mitakshara School and declared the 2nd marriage to be null and void.
◙Then, the defendant challenged the decision of the Trial Court in the Appellate Court, claiming that all the children from 1st and 2nd marriage are entitled for 1/6th share in the property.
● FIRST APPELLATE COURT:
○The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s conclusions after re-evaluating the case and taking a fresh look at all of the available information. However, the Trial Court’s ruling that illegitimate children born out of void marriages or similar circumstances are not entitled to share in coparcenary property was overturned in light of a Karnataka High Court division bench’s 2005 ruling in the case of Smt. Sarojamma and Ors. vs. Smt. Neelamma and Ors. According to the ruling of the Appellate Court, children born out of a void marriage are entitled to the same privileges and rights as coparceners. Each of the plaintiffs and defendants was entitled to a one-sixth portion of the ancestral properties.
◙Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Court the plaintiff challenged the decision in the High Court of Karnataka.
●SECOND APPELLATE COURT:
○The High Court held that both the children from the 2nd marriage are illegitimate and the marriage itself was null and void. Hence, the defendant are only entitled to get the share in the self-acquired property rather than the ancestral property and they would not be termed as coparceners. The court declared that the children from the 1st marriage are entitled to get 1/3rd share in the Suit Property, [Reference: SRI KENCHEGOWDA V. K.B. KRISHNAPPA AND ORS. (2008)]
◙Then, the defendant challenged the decision of the High Court of Karnataka and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and claimed their right in the Ancestral property.
ISSUES RAISED:
○Whether the children form the 2nd marriage are legitimate or illegitimate and would they have the right in the both Ancestral property and Self Acquired property?
○Whether the children born out of the void marriage are termed as coparceners under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
○Whether the legislative intent under the Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was to give the equal rights to the children born out of the void marriage and to declare them as coparceners?
○Whether during the partition between the coparceners of the ancestral property, illegitimate children are entitled to get any share?
○Whether the Section 16(3) include both the kinds of property- Ancestral and Self Acquired property, as the property is not defined in it?
○Whether the illegitimate children are only entitled to get the share in the parent’s property or in the 3rd person’s property also?
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
•Section 16(3) of HMA restricts the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages only to the property of their parents but does not impose any other limitations on their entitlements.
•The provision grants full legitimacy to such children, including coparcenary rights in the father’s property.
•Section 16(3) does not distinguish between ancestral and self-acquired property when referring to property.
•The parent’s property includes their share in the coparcenary property once the larger coparcenary is partitioned.
•Denying children of void or voidable marriages their rightful share in coparcenary property is excessively harsh and unfair.
•The purpose of Section 16 is to eliminate the stigma attached to such children and ensure they are treated equally with legitimate children.
•The 1976 amendment aimed to treat all legitimate children equally as coparceners, but Section 16(3) still deprives children from void or voidable marriages of inheritance rights in ancestral/coparcenary property.
•A limited interpretation of Section 16(3) contradicts the legislative intent and violates the property rights of such children under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution.
•A purposive reading of Section 16(3) is necessary to uphold equality and justice in property rights.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
•The property of the father, once partitioned from the larger coparcenary, remains coparcenary property and cannot be classified as “property of the parent” under Section 16(3) of HMA, as established in Jinia Keotin.
•A child conferred legitimacy under Sections 16(1) and (2) has no right in the father’s coparcenary property but only in the parent’s self-acquired property.
•The legislative intent behind Section 16(3) was to remove the stigma of illegitimacy without altering the structure of the coparcenary system.
•The reasonable classification under Article 14, with intelligible differentia, protects both legitimate children and coparceners, maintaining a fair balance.
•Parliament has consistently amended inheritance laws to grant rights to children within the parents’ property while ensuring the integrity of the Mitakshara coparcenary system.
•The transformation of inherited property into the parent’s self-acquired property through legislative changes aligns with evolving public policy and ensures that Section 16 of HMA benefits legitimate children without disrupting the coparcenary.
•Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India reaffirmed that legislative amendments address potential legal voids while upholding the inheritance rights of all legitimate children.
RATIONALE
● Legitimacy and Property Rights: The Court reiterated that although children born out of void or voidable marriages are granted legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this legitimacy does not extend to rights in coparcenary or ancestral property. These kids only have the right to their parents’ self-acquired property.
● Preservation of Coparcenary Structure: The ruling made clear that the purpose of Section 16 was to eliminate the stigma associated with illegitimacy without interfering with the established Hindu coparcenary system. Children from void or voidable marriages would be granted coparcenary rights, which would change the current inheritance structure and was not the legislation’s goal.
●Innocence of Children: The Supreme Court emphasized that children cannot be punished for the circumstances of their birth. The marital status of parents should not determine a child’s property rights.
●Complete Legitimacy: The Court held that legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not partial but absolute, ensuring that such children are not treated unfairly in inheritance matters.
●Broad Interpretation of “Property of Parents”: The judgment suggested that “property of parents” should be understood broadly, including all properties owned by the parents, without distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property.
●Social Justice and Constitutional Morality: The ruling aligned with constitutional principles of equality and justice, particularly under Articles 14 and 21, ensuring that no child is deprived of rights due to societal prejudices.
DEFECTS OF LAW
●The court applied the principle of INTELLIGIBLE DIFFRENTIA under Article 14, by stating that they have give the equal rights to the both legitimate and illegitimate child, but in fact the judgement have not safeguarded the right of the innocent child who is considered legitimate under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but rights of both the child differs which leads to the breach of the Right To Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
●The amendment made in the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which aims to give the equal right in the property to the child born from the void marriage and legitimate child but then also this law is not equally applied and safeguarded the right of the innocent child.
●The law was not applied according to the changing legal environment granting equal rights to the child born from void marriage which creates a lot tussle and could lead tp the downtrodden life of that child who is having no fault.
●The constitutional principles of the equality were not applied which lead to the fundamental weakness in the legal framework.
INFERENCE
● Limited Property Rights: While children born from void or voidable marriages are granted legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA, their inheritance rights remain confined to the self-acquired property of their parents and do not extend to ancestral or coparcenary property.
● Preservation of Coparcenary System: The ruling reinforces the traditional Hindu coparcenary structure, preventing any disruption that could arise from granting coparcenary rights to such children.
●Legislative Intent Upheld: The decision aligns with the original legislative purpose of Section 16, which was to remove the social stigma of illegitimacy without altering established inheritance laws.
●Clarification of Legal Position: The judgment settles conflicting interpretations by affirming that legitimacy under Section 16 does not equate to coparcenary rights, maintaining a clear distinction between self-acquired and ancestral property.
●Balance Between Rights and Tradition: The Court’s approach ensures a balance between protecting the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages and safeguarding the interests of legitimate heirs and coparceners.
Name: Apurva Boora
University: National Law University, Sonepat, Haryana