Case: Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1087...

BENCH: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, addressed the issue of whether a child born from a marriage that is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is entitled to ancestral/coparcenary property, or only the self-earned/separate property of the parents. The judgment clarifies that while legitimacy is conferred upon such children under Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the HMA, it does not grant them rights in the coparcenary property under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by the Mitakshara law.

Facts of the Case:

The case arose from the question of whether children born from a void or voidable marriage are entitled to coparcenary rights in the ancestral property governed by the Mitakshara law. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if legitimacy alone, under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, is sufficient to grant a child the status of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family.

Sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the HMA confer legitimacy on children born from void and voidable marriages, respectively, but Section 16(3) expressly limits their rights to property only to that of the parents. The issue was whether this legitimacy extends to the child's claim over the ancestral or coparcenary property.

Issues:

1. Whether a child born from a marriage that is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is entitled to rights in ancestral/coparcenary property under the Hindu Mitakshara law.

2. Whether the conferment of legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA automatically confers coparcenary rights to children born of void or voidable marriages.

Observations:

The Court, after extensive deliberation, held that children born from a marriage that is null and void under the HMA are legitimate, but their rights in property are confined to the property of the parents, as per Section 16(3). The key observations include:

• The Court clarified that legitimacy, as conferred by Sections 16(1) and 16(2), does not automatically extend to coparcenary rights. This means that a child born from a void or voidable marriage does not acquire an interest in the coparcenary property governed by Mitakshara law, which is reserved for legitimate coparceners.

• The Court analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), and concluded that while Section 6 of the HSA acknowledges the concept of coparcenary property, it does not extend such rights to a child whose legitimacy is protected under Section 16 of the HMA, except in relation to the property of the parents.

• The judgment highlighted that the intention behind the enactment of Section 16 was to protect children born from void or voidable marriages from the stigma of illegitimacy. However, the legislature also aimed to ensure that such children do not have rights in ancestral or coparcenary property, which could interfere with the rights of others in the joint family.

Implications:

1. Rights of Children from Void Marriages: Children born of marriages that are null and void under the HMA are recognized as legitimate, but their property rights are confined solely to their parents’ property. This ensures that while they are protected from being labeled "illegitimate," they do not acquire rights in the coparcenary property, which is reserved for legitimate coparceners.

2. Protection from Illegitimacy Stigma: The ruling reinforces the legislative intention to protect children born from void or voidable marriages from being stigmatized as illegitimate while balancing the interests of the coparcenary system under the Mitakshara law.

3. No Automatic Coparcenary Rights: The judgment makes it clear that a child, even if legitimate under Section 16, does not automatically become a coparcener in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family. This has significant implications for inheritance rights and the distribution of property within such families.

4. Harmonization with Hindu Succession Act: The Court harmonized the provisions of the HMA with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to ensure that the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages are not expanded to include rights in ancestral property, thus maintaining the integrity of the coparcenary system.