Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

"Supreme Court Clarifies Property Rights of Children Born from Void or Voidable Marriages: 'Rights Confined to Property of Parents'"

04 September 2024 11:23 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 1, 2023 - In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA 1955) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA 1956). The Court stated that such children have rights "only in the property of their parents and not of any other person."

Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, leading the three-judge bench, observed, "While conferring legitimacy in terms of sub-section (1) on a child born from a void marriage and under sub-section (2) to a child born from a voidable marriage which has been annulled, the legislature has stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 16 that such a child will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person."

The judgment comes as a significant clarification in the realm of Hindu personal law, particularly concerning the rights of children born from marriages that are either void or voidable. The Court emphasized that the legitimacy conferred by Section 16 of the HMA 1955 does not automatically make such children coparceners in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law.

"The provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be harmonized with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA 1955," Justice Chandrachud added. He further noted that the property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law, has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub-section (3).

The judgment also revisited and clarified the observations made in the referring judgment by a two-judge bench. It laid down that the interpretation of the Court must be guided by the constitutional principle of individual dignity but within the limitations set by the law.

The Court's decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, particularly for pending cases involving similar issues. The judgment has been circulated to all High Courts for immediate listing and disposal of such cases.

D.D.01.09.2023

Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun & Ors.

Latest Legal News