2011 (3) TMI 1763 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of children born from a void marriage.
2. Entitlement of illegitimate children to ancestral and self-acquired property.
3. Interpretation of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legitimacy of children born from a void marriage

The Plaintiffs (first wife and her two children) filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the Defendants for their 1/4th share each with respect to ancestral property. The Plaintiffs contended that the first Defendant's second marriage was void, and thus, the children from this marriage were not coparceners. The Trial Court held that the second marriage was void and the third Plaintiff was the legally wedded wife, entitling her to claim partition. The Appellate Court affirmed these findings but held that children from a void marriage were to be treated at par with coparceners and entitled to joint family properties.

Issue 2: Entitlement of illegitimate children to ancestral and self-acquired property

The High Court of Karnataka held that illegitimate children only had rights to the property of their parents, not coparcenary property by birth. The Supreme Court examined Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which states that children from void marriages can only claim rights to their parents' property. The Court noted that the legislature used the term "property" broadly, without specifying self-acquired or ancestral property. Historical cases and amendments were discussed, showing that illegitimate children had limited rights compared to legitimate children but could claim their father's property after his death.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 16(3) in previous cases like Jinia Keotin, Neelamma, and Bharatha Matha, which limited illegitimate children's rights to self-acquired property. The Court disagreed with these interpretations, stating that the amended Section 16(3) intended to remove the stigma of illegitimacy and should be interpreted to include both self-acquired and ancestral property of the parents. The Court emphasized that such children are legitimate and should not be discriminated against, aligning with constitutional values of equality and dignity. The Court concluded that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that illegitimate children are entitled to a share in their parents' property, whether self-acquired or ancestral, but not in the property of any other relation. The interpretation of Section 16(3) in previous judgments was reconsidered, and the matter was referred to a larger Bench for further examination.