Supreme Court Holds that a Child of an ‘invalid Marriage’ is Entitled to a Share in the Parents’ Property in Cases Governed by Mitakshara Law

INTRODUCTION

On 01 September 2023, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”), led by the Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, while answering a reference, in Revanasiddappa and another versus Mallikarjun and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1087 (“Revanasiddappa”) put a quietus to the issue surrounding inheritance rights of an illegitimate child to the parents’ property whose marriage is null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) or voidable under Section 12 of HMA. .The common judgment and order was passed in a group of matters. The Hon’ble Court held that, a child of an ‘invalid marriage’ is entitled to a share in the parents’ property, both self-acquired and ancestral, after ascertaining the rights of such parent as per the mandate prescribed under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”). Such child, however, does not become a coparcener in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family.

The reference was necessitated due to divergent views taken by two benches of the Court in Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, (2003) 1 SCC 730 (“Jinia Keotin”) and Revanasiddappa v Mallik Arjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1. Jinia Keotin held that merely because a child born out of a void and illegal marriage has been safeguarded under Section 16 of HMA, he/she cannot be equated with the legitimate offspring or form part of a coparcenary. Per contra, Revanasiddappa held that once an illegitimate child is sanctioned with legislative legitimacy under Section 16 of HMA, he/she ought not to be discriminated against and he/she is on par with other legitimate children in respect of all the rights in the property of their parents, including self-acquired and ancestral property. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

• The Appellants are the illegitimate sons of Shri Shivasharanappa. 
• The first wife of Shivasharanappa along with her two sons, the Respondents herein, filed a suit for partition of their share with respect to ancestral properties (“Suit Properties”) of Shivasharanappa. The first wife contended that Shivasharanappa, married the second wife, while his first marriage was subsisting, therefore, the children born out of the second marriage are not entitled to any share in the ancestral property as they are not coparceners. 
• The Trial Court held in favour of the first wife and observed that she, her two sons and Shivasharanappa are entitled to the Suit Properties. The illegitimate children cannot have any claim on the Suit Properties. Thereafter, the Appellate Court held that the illegitimate children, are also entitled to a share in the Suit Properties. 
• In a second appeal preferred by the first wife and her sons, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to a share of the coparcenary property by birth but are only entitled to the specific share of their father, which stands determined / ascertained upon partition. The High Court further held that the illegitimate children would be entitled to such share in their father’s dying intestate and not during his lifetime.
• Aggrieved thereto, the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

ISSUES

The three judge Bench formulated the following issues:

i. Whether the legislative intent is to confer legitimacy on a child covered by Section 16 in a manner that makes him/her a coparcener, and thus entitled to claim a share in coparcenary property - actual or notional.

ii. At what point does a coparcenary property become the property of the parent? 

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT 

• Section 16(3) of HMA does not circumscribe the rights of a child born of a void or voidable marriage except restricting it to the property of his/her parents. The said provision confers all the connotations of legitimacy on such a child, including coparcenary rights in the property of the father. Further, Section 16(3) of HMA does not qualify the expression ‘property’ either with ancestral or self-acquired. 
• Property of the parent includes the share in the coparcenary property, once the larger coparcenary stands partitioned. 
• The purport of Section 16 is not only to eliminate the stigma experienced by such children, but to treat all children, legitimate per se or legitimate by reason of sub section 3 of Section 16, alike. 

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS 

• The property of the father, ascertained upon partition from the larger coparcenary, is still coparcenary property and cannot be classified as‘property of the parent’ in terms of Section 16(3) of HMA and thus, a child conferred with legitimacy under Sections 16(1) and (2) has no right in it.
• The legislative intent was to merely erase the stigma associated with illegitimacy, and not to interfere with the structure of a coparcenary. Thus, under Section 16(3) of HMA, the only right is with respect to the self-acquired property of the parent.

JUDGMENT

The Hon’ble Court formulated its conclusions in the following terms: 

• The Court observed that provisions of the HSA have to be harmonized with the mandate of Section 16 of HMA. 
• In doing so, the Court observed that a child who has been conferred with legitimacy by Section 16 of HMA, would fall within the ambit of the explanation ‘related by legitimate kinship’, under Section 3(1)(j) of the HSA. 
• Section 6 of the HSA provides for the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. In terms of Section 6(3), upon the death of a Hindu his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law will devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship.
• Section 6(3) of the HSA postulates a legal fiction that the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place before the death of such a Hindu. Therefore, for ascertaining the interest of a deceased Hindu coparcener in a coparcenary property, law mandates assumption of a state of affairs immediately prior to the death of such coparcener.
• Now, once the share of the deceased in the coparcenary property is ascertained, his legal heirs include children who have been statutorily conferred with legitimacy under the HMA are entitled to a share in such property as determined by the legal fiction prescribed under Section 6(3) of the HSA.

In summary, the first step in determining the entitlement of a child from an invalid marriage is to ascertain/crystalize the share of his/her parent in the coparcenary property. The aforesaid determination could be done by conducting a ‘notional partition’ as per Section 6(3) of the HSA. Once the share of the parent is ascertained, all the heirs, including children of a ‘void’ or ‘voidable’ marriage, as the case may be, would be entitled to a share in their parents’ property.  

The Hon’ble Court however expressly clarified that the said observations are limited only to Joint Hindu families governed by Mitakshara law. 

COMMENTS

Through this judgment, the Hon’ble Court by harmonizing the intrinsic provisions of the HMA and HSA, achieved the twin objective of striking a balance between protecting the rights of a child, born from an ‘invalid’ or ‘illegal’ marriage, while not eclipsing the settled principles of coparcenary or Joint Hindu Family under the Mitakshara Law. Thus, while an illegitimate child has been conferred with legitimacy and a right in the parents’ property, both ancestral and self-acquired, such a child does not become a coparcener in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family and does not acquire any right by birth, as enjoyed by a coparcener.