New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' property as per the Hindu Succession law.
According to the Hindu law, the man and woman in a void marriage do not have the status of husband and wife. However, they have the status of husband and wife in the voidable marriage.
In a void marriage, no decree of nullity is required to annul the marriage. While, in a voidable marriage decree of nullity is required.
.jpg.transform/170x160/image.jpg "SC seeks Centre's response to pleas on criminalisation of marital rape")
The top court issued the judgement while pronouncing its verdict on a 2011 plea pertaining to the vexatious legal issue of whether non-marital children were entitled to a share in the ancestral property of their parents under Hindu laws.
"We have now formulated conclusion, 1. A child of a marriage which is null and void is statutorily conferred with the legitimacy, 2. In terms of 16(2) (of the Hindu Marriage Act) where a voidable marriage is annulled, a child begotten before degree is deemed to be legitimate," a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said in the judgement.
"Equal rights have been granted to daughters in the same manner...," it said.
The top court decided the question whether the share of such children is limited only to the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
These questions were referred to a larger bench by a two-judge bench of the apex court on March 31, 2011.
After pronouncing the judgment, CJI DY Chandrachud said that the judgment contains the illustration which he had used during the hearing.
The illustration was as follows :
Suppose there are four brothers C1, C2, C3 and C4. C2 dies. Notional partition takes place immediately before his death. C2 has a widow, a daughter from a valid marriage and a son from an invalid marriage. So if a notional partition is to take place, C2 will be getting 1/4th of the coparcenory property. So that share which would be allotted to C2, namely the 1/4th, would be distributed among him, his wife and his daughter - 1/12th each. Further, the 1/12th share of C2 would be distributed among the wife, the daughter and the son from the invalid marriage.
CJI further said that one argument was that the 1/4th share of C2 also should be allotted to the
son from the invalid marriage. "That can't be. Because, to hold so would be to make the son from the invalid marriage a coparcener and that would directly conflict with Section 16(3)", CJI said.
(With PTI, Live Law inputs)
