Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors., has held that the children born out of void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate and would be treated as successors in the property of common ancestors.

What was the Background of Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors. Case?

• In this case, Muthusamy Gounder is a common ancestor in interest who died in the year 1982.
• He had three marriages out of which two marriages were declared void.
• Out of these three marriages, Gounder had four sons and one daughter, and he divided and allotted the share in the property in accordance with law.
• Before the Trial Court, the legitimate son filed the suit for partition.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition in favor of the legitimate child.
• Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the children of void marriage.
• The High Court, in all particulars, accepted the view of the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court which was allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti observed that once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage.
• The Court noted that the children born out of void marriages would be treated as successors in the interest of Muthusamy Gounder, and accordingly the shared needs to be worked out.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Legitimacy of Children

About:

• Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a special provision which deals with the legitimacy of children both in void and voidable marriages. It states that -

(1) Notwithstanding that a 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, 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.

Case Laws:

• In Lakshmamma v. Thayamma (1974), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 16 of HMA, the benefit of legitimacy has been conferred upon children of both void and voidable marriages.
• In Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003), the Supreme Court held that the mandate of Section 16(3) of HMA clearly expresses that there is no room to confer upon such children any right except the property of their parents.