Supreme Court Rules Children of Void or Voidable Hindu Marriages Entitled to Parents' Share in Coparcenary Property

Three-Judge Bench Clarifies Legislative Intent Under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act and Harmonizes It With Hindu Succession Act Provisions on Property Rights

In a landmark judgment delivered on September 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, through a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, has clarified the property rights of children born from void or voidable Hindu marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). The Court resolved a longstanding legal ambiguity regarding whether such children, who have been conferred legitimacy by Section 16 of the HMA, have the right to inherit ancestral or coparcenary property of their parents in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara law.

The reference arose from conflicting interpretations of Section 16(3) of the HMA, which confers legitimacy on children born of marriages that are either null and void under Section 11 or voidable under Section 12 but limits their property rights to the property of their parents alone. Earlier two-judge bench decisions had restricted such children to self-acquired parental property and denied them rights in ancestral coparcenary property. However, the present judgment has harmonized these provisions with the amended Section 6 of the HSA, which provides for testamentary or intestate succession of coparcenary property post-2005 amendments.

Key findings of the Court include:

1. Statutory Legitimacy: Children born from void or voidable Hindu marriages are statutorily conferred legitimacy irrespective of whether a decree of nullity has been granted and regardless of whether the child was born before or after the 1976 amendment to Section 16 of the HMA.

2. Property Rights Limited to Parents' Property: While legitimacy is conferred, Section 16(3) restricts such children’s property rights strictly to the property of their parents. They do not acquire rights in the property of any other person.

3. Interpretation of ‘Property of Parents’ in Coparcenary Context: The Court elucidated that in the context of coparcenary property under Mitakshara law, the ‘property of parents’ is determined through a notional partition immediately before the parent’s death, as prescribed under Section 6(3) of the HSA (amended in 2005). The share of the deceased coparcener is ascertained by assuming such partition, and the property devolves by testamentary or intestate succession to the Class I heirs, including children who have statutory legitimacy under Section 16(1) and (2) of HMA.

4. Children of Void/ Voidable Marriages Not Coparceners by Birth: Unlike children born of valid marriages, children legitimized under Section 16 do not become coparceners by birth in the Mitakshara joint family and cannot claim partition rights in the larger coparcenary during their parents’ lifetime. However, once the parent’s share is ascertained post notional partition, these children are entitled to a proportionate share of that property on par with other legitimate children.

5. Harmonization of HMA and HSA: The Court held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, including the expanded rights of daughters as coparceners under the 2005 amendment, must be read harmoniously with Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Children legitimized under Section 16 are entitled to inheritance rights as Class I heirs under the HSA, and cannot be treated as illegitimate for succession purposes.

6. Constitutional Values and Social Reform: The judgment underscores the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and social reform objectives of the HMA by removing the stigma of illegitimacy from children born of void or voidable marriages and ensuring they receive equitable rights in their parents' property.

The Court also directed all High Courts to expedite pending cases involving similar issues to ensure swift justice for children affected by the previous ambiguities in the law. The judgment involved extensive references to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Law Commission reports, and statutory amendments, providing a comprehensive interpretation that balances traditional joint family property concepts with modern social realities.

This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for family law and succession disputes, particularly in cases involving children born out of marriages that are legally invalid but where the children were statutorily declared legitimate.

Statutory provisions

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5, 11, 12, 16(1), 16(2), 16(3);

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 3(1)(j), 6 (including amended Section 6(3)), 8, 10, 15, 16;

Amendment Acts: Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1976; Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2303128