Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting 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