Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

"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