Why in News?

• The Supreme Court considered the arguments on the issue of whether children born out of a void or voidable marriage has a right to their parent’s ancestral property as per Hindu law.
• The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra examined the scope of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
• The court considered the matter of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun and other connected cases.

Background

• The case is a reference on the issue of illegitimate children's rights in father's ancestral property.
• In this case, a two judges bench opined that such children would have a right to every property of their parents whether self-acquired or ancestral.
• However, the same question was pending in several high courts.
• Considering the pendency of the case of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun from several years, the bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in November 2022 opined the matter to be placed before Chief Justice of India.
• The party favoring the right of child born out of void/voidable marriages contended that no child should be considered 'illegitimate' as it was the marriage, which was illegitimate, not the child.
• The argument in the contrary was a reasonable classification existed between children born out of a void or voidable marriage and a valid marriage, hence not providing illegitimate children with rights in coparcener property was a 'balancing act'.

Ancestral Property

• Ancestral property means any movable or immovable property which an individual inherits from his ancestors.
• Properties that are inherited as well as properties that are acquired through inheritance, gift, purchase, or any other means are also included in ancestral property.
• Ancestral property is covered under deceased’s estate under Hindu Law.
• According to Mitakshara Law, the right to ancestral property arises from the birth itself, for a property to be an ancestral property it must remain as an undivided property. Ancestral property does not include self-acquired property, gift, partition deed.
• In Gurdip Kaur v. Ghamand Singh (1964), it was held by the court that the ancestral property was said to be a property inherited from a father, father’s father or great grandfather.

Illegitimate Child

• A child conceived or born out of void/voidable marriages, illicit relationships, through concubines, or marriage not solemnized with proper ceremonies is an Illegitimate Child.
• Section 16 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs the inheritance rights of illegitimate children.
• According to Section 16 (3), illegitimate children are only entitled to the property of their parents and not of any other relation.
• Apart from Hindus, the law is also applicable to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.

Legal Provision

Section of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages

(1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.