Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

"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