INTRODUCTION:
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun is a landmark decided by the Supreme Court of India on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and what it means for the right to inherit and legitimacy of children born from void or voidable marriages.
Importance: This case is important because it addresses the rights of children from void or voidable marriages under the HMA, particularly their right to property within Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) governed by Mitakshara law. This court decision has an impact on future interpretations of law and changes to laws, ensuring equal treatment while recognizing evolving societal norms and the basic idea of person dignity.
FACTS:
Involved parties were the petitioners, Revanasiddappa and Another,challenged the inheritance rights of children born from marriages declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) 1955. The respondents, Mallikarjun and Others, defended the restricted property rights of such children.
The case started from a legal dispute regarding the legitimacy and property rights of children born from marriages regarded void under Section 11 of the HMA 1955. The petitioners argued that despite the invalidity of the marriages, these children should inherit their parents’ property under the changed Section 16 of the HMA 1955.
The case is focused upon the interpretation of Section 16, notably sub-sections (1), (2), and (3). The petitioners stated that children from invalid marriages enjoy the same status and inheritance rights as children from lawful marriages. As a result, the respondents stated that Section 16 restricts these rights to property owned by parents only, excluding ancestral or joint family interests. The case showed the legislative reasoning behind the Section 16 changes, as well as the consequences for the property rights of children born from invalid marriages.
ISSUES RAISED:
The Supreme Court is taking arguments on the inheritance rights of children legitimizedunder Sections 16(1) or 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Particularly, the court must decide whether these children have the right to ancestral or coparcenaryproperty from their parents, or if their inheritance is restricted to self-earned or independent property.
1) “Whether a child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) is entitled to the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents.”
2) “Whether the legislative intent is to confer legitimacy on a child covered by Section 16 in a manner that makes them coparceners, thus entitled to initiate or get a share in the partition – actual or notional.”
CONTENTION:
Petitioner’s argument:
As per Revanasiddappa and Another, children of marriages dissolved or deemed not valid and null according to the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) Sections 16(1) and 16(2) should have equal rights in acquiring coparcenary property. They say, “Section 16 confers legitimacy upon such children. Denying them inheritance rights perpetuates unjust distinctions and violates their constitutional rights to equality. The 1976 amendment aimed to remove discriminatory practices, ensuring parity for all legitimate children.”
Respondent’s argument:
Children of marriages that have been declared null and invalid or dissolved do not inherit coparcenary property rights, as claimed by Mallikarjun and others. They argued that, “Section 16(3) explicitly excludes such children from inheriting property as legitimate children, preserving coparcenary rights for offspring of valid marriages under Hindu law. Extending these rights would disrupt established inheritance principles.”
In an attempt to avoid the unlawful denial of inheritance rights, the amicus curiae argue for an expansive interpretation of Section 16, highlighting its legal consequences. They say, “Children from void or voidable marriages should not be denied inheritance solely based on marriage validity, contrary to principles of justice and equity upheld in international human rights standards.”
RATIONALE:
Summary of judgement:
The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, Section 16(3) should be viewed according to with the constitutional/ legal principles of equal treatment and dignity for each person, the Supreme Court of India ruled.The Court established the children’s rights to their parents’ property and discusses the lawfulness of children born out of invalid or voidable marriages.
Legal Precedents and Concepts:
The Court stated the presumption that a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener’s interest is determined by a hypothetical separation that takes place just before to his death. In this scenario, children born out of invalid or voidable marriages recognized by Section 16 have the right to their portion of their parents’ property, but not those owned by other family members.In the framework of Hindu coparcenary, this idea was explained, where the, “deeming fiction requires an assumption of a hypothetical state of affairs in terms of which a notional partition is deemed to have taken place immediately before the death of the Hindu Mitakshara coparcener.”
Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation:
The Court viewed Section 16(3) in accordance with its need of maintaining equality and dignity as fundamental principles of the constitution. The Court declared, “The interpretation of Section 16(3) must be based on the constitutional values of equality of status and opportunity as well as individual dignity.” It highlighted that children who are legally recognized under Sections 16(1) and 16(2) have rights to their parents’ property, “but they cannot claim it in their own right as a consequence of which they cannot seek partition during the lifetime of their parents.”
Opposing Opinions vs. The vast majority:
None important disagreements were mentioned. In addition, the majority conclusion emphasised adapting the legislative construction to constitutional requirements. It made clear that although legally recognized children have rights to their parents’ belongings, “Section 16(3) has expressly stipulated that the rights of such a child… would be in respect of the property of the parents and not of any other person.”
DEFECTS OF LAW:
This ruling has certain notable weaknesses in its legal reasoning. At the core of the dispute is the construction placed on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was ruled that children of void or voidable marriages could not get their ancestors’ properties. However, this goes against the grain of the 1976 amendment intended to eradicate the stigma associated with illegitimacy. The Fifty-ninth Report of the Law Commission says “The Hindu Marriage Act, however, has already adopted the third view; it would be a retrograde step if it now reverts to the second view.” This ruling might go against what legislators wanted which was to make these children completely legitimate.
In future, this judgment may lead to more cases as kids from unlawful marriages can contest disinheritance. Similarly, it appears irreconcilable with prior decisions that shielded such off springs’ rights. The purpose for amending Act No 68 of 1976 was to absolutely change perception toward treating children born out of void or voidable marriages as being illegitimate. Such deviation from legislative intent may bring about legal uncertainties and perceived injustices in similar future cases.
INFERENCES:
The decision in the case of “Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun” has serious implications for law and society as a whole. The judgement breaks away from the 1976 amendment’s legislative intent by ruling that children of void or voidable marriages under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot inherit ancestral property. Nevertheless, this verdict may amount to discrimination against these kids despite attempts made to eliminate such disparities.
On a personal level, I feel that this ruling is unfair. It is unjust to deny children their rightful inheritance simply because their parents had void or voidable marriages. However, the Law Commission has also held that such children should be treated equally with other children through its Fifty-ninth report. It seems however that they have taken many steps backward on this issue decision which limits their inheritance rights and might affect their socio-economic opportunities thus strengthening social prejudices.
There is therefore an urgent need for statutory reforms to bring judicial interpretations in line with the true spirit of the legislation. What future legal developments must address before all else is how best to protect as well as promote fair treatment towards those children borne out of null or annullable marital relationships when considering matters related to inheritance rights. This case calls for a re-examination of Section 16(3) in order to reflect contemporary societal values on the subject.
So in short, the result serves to demonstrates the complexity of the legal system, but most importantly, the rules of inheritance need to be updated so they better reflect societal norms, and to bring fairness to all people, regardless of their parent’s marital state.
CONCLUSION:
The case of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun has, therefore, very correctly held that rights and privileges available to a legitimate child shall be equally applicable to an illegitimate child who are born of void marriages under Hindu law and it serves as an important legal precedent on this particular issue. By interpreting Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has legitimized these children in the eyes of the law and also provided them with the legacy claims and has removed the taint of illegitimacy. Even though the judgment takes a step forward in plugging some of the undefined holes in the previous legal doctrines, it remains a work in progress i.e more cases to follow will only act as a primer for setting the interpretation and harmonization of these contexts. All with all this decision underscores the judiciary’s role inchanging family law in accordance to modern social norms and fairness principles.”
Name: Pulkit Singh Gill
College: OP Jindal Global University