LI Network
Published on: 02 September 2023 at 12:50 IST
The Supreme Court has clarified that a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to a share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law. However, the Court emphasized that such a child cannot be considered a coparcener by birth within the HUF.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra addressed the issue raised in the case of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun. The question referred for consideration was whether a child, conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is entitled to the ancestral or coparcenary property of the parents or only to their self-earned or separate property.
The Court examined whether the legislative intent was to grant coparcenary status to such children, allowing them to initiate or receive a share in a partition, whether actual or notional.
One argument presented was that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act aims to treat all legitimate children equally as coparceners. Once children born from void or voidable marriages are recognized as legitimate, there should be no differentiation between them and children born from lawful marriages.
In contrast, the opposing viewpoint contended that conferring legitimacy on a child is distinct from elevating them to the status of a coparcener.
The Court noted that the present Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides for property devolution through testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship. Nevertheless, Section 6 still acknowledges the existence of Mitakshara Hindu Joint families. Addressing the arguments,
The Court stated: “The amendments have expanded the structure of the HUF to promote gender equality within the institution. However, the legislature has not explicitly stated that a child whose legitimacy is protected by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would become a coparcener by birth.
In contrast, the express language used in sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifies that the conferment of legitimacy does not grant any rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. The concept of a coparcener presupposes the acquisition of an interest by birth. Granting an individual born from a void or voidable marriage coparcenary status in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law would affect the rights of others beyond the child’s parents.
Holding that legitimacy under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 equates to coparcenary status would contradict the clear intention of sub-section (3) of Section 16, which recognizes rights only in the property of the parents. The negative language used in Section 16(3) leaves no room for doubt. Therefore, we must conclude that individuals falling within the protective scope of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16 are entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of their parents and no one else.”
