Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun has affirmed that a child born out of a void or voidable marriage has the right to claim a share in their parents' share of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under the Mitakshara law. However, it was emphasized that such a child cannot automatically be considered a coparcener in the HUF by birth.

Background

• The present case arises out of a reference made to a three-judge bench of the SC.
• The law on present matter is majorly provided by Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) as follows:
  • A child born to parents whose marriage is null and void under Section 11 of the HMA is declared to “be legitimate” by Section 16 (1) of the said Act.
  • Similarly, where a decree of nullity has been granted under Section 12 of HMA in respect of a voidable marriage, a child “begotten or conceived before the decree is made” is “deemed to be their legitimate child” by virtue of Section 16(2).
  • Section 16(3) provides that a child of a marriage that is null or void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity shall not have “any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents”.
• SC has on prior occasions considered the nature of the rights conferred on children of parents whose marriage is either void under Section 11 or in respect of which a decree of nullity has been passed under Section 12.
• In Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003), a two-judge Bench of SC held that “Merely because the children born out of a void and illegal marriage have been specifically safeguarded under Section 16, they ought not to be treated on par with children born from a lawful marriage for the purpose of inheritance of the ancestral property of the parents”.
  • The court further observed that there is an express mandate of the legislature under Section 16(3) of HMA that a child born from a void marriage or a voidable marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity has been passed would have no right to inheritance in respect of ancestral or coparcenary property.
  • The verdict as described above was further followed in two other cases, namely Neelamma v. Sarojamma (2006) and Bharatha Matha v. R Vijaya Renganathan (2010).
• A Civil Appeal was filed in the present matter in 2011 under which the SC doubted the correctness of earlier verdicts and hence referred the case to a larger bench (3-Judges) with the primary issue being:
  • Whether a child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) is, by reason of Section 16(3), entitled to the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents or is the child merely entitled to the self-earned/separate property of the parents?

Court’s Observations

• The SC’s 3 judge bench comprising of CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra explained the situation while giving following illustration observed that such a child has right in parent’s property but is not a coparcener in HUF.
• Illustration provided by CJI - Assuming there are four brothers C1, C2, C3 and C4, C2 dies. C2 is survived by a widow (W), a daughter (D) from a valid marriage and a son (S) from an invalid marriage. In such case, it is considered that a Notional Partition takes place immediately before his death.
  • If a notional partition is to take place, C2 will be getting 1/4 of the coparcenary property.
  • That share of C2 is now 1/4 and this would be distributed among C2, W and D, therefore they will get 1/12 share each.
  • C2’s final share under notional partition would be 1/12th.
  • Now to calculate S’s share we further need to divide C2’s share among W, D and S. This would come out to be one-third of C2’s share each of notional partition.
  • Hence, now each person’s share comes out to be:
    • W’s Share - 1/12th share plus 1/3rd share in C2’s share of notional partition.
    • D’s Share - 1/12th share plus 1/3rd share in C2’s share of notional partition.
    • S’s Share – 1/3rd share in C2’s share of notional partition.
  • Had S been C2’s son born out of a valid marriage then W, D, and S would each get 1/12th share.

Hindu Undivided Family

• A joint family structure includes all members of a Hindu family living together, sharing common ancestral property, and following the principles of Hindu law for managing and partition of family assets.
• Prior to legislative enactments pertaining to Hindus, HUF was governed by two major schools:
  • Mitakshara School
    • It has ancient roots and is believed to have been formulated by the Indian sage Vijnanesvara, who wrote the Mitakshara commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, an important text in Hindu law.
    • One of the central tenets of the Mitakshara school is the concept of coparcenary and joint family property.
  • Dayabhaga School
    • The Dayabhaga school is believed to have been developed by Jimutavahana, a medieval Indian jurist. He wrote "Dayabhaga," commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti.
    • Unlike the Mitakshara school, which emphasizes coparcenary and joint family property, the Dayabhaga school does not recognize the concept of coparcenary.