The Supreme Court of India has issued a ruling of profound significance, affirming the rights of children born out of void or voidable marriages to inherit a portion of their deceased parents' property, specifically in the context of Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. This ruling offers a crucial clarification of the interpretation of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a provision that deals with the legitimacy of children born from marriages considered invalid under the law.

The pivotal case was heard by a three-judge bench, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud at the helm. The case in question emerged as a reference to the earlier 2011 judgment in the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun. The prior ruling had established that children born out of void or voidable marriages possessed inheritance rights over their parents' properties, regardless of whether these properties were self-acquired or ancestral.

At the core of this legal debate lay the crucial question: when does a property come to be considered the rightful possession of a parent within a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Hindu Mitakshara law? The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the interest of coparcenors in a Hindu Mitakshara property is defined as the share they would have received if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before their demise. The Court's judgment now firmly establishes that children born out of marriages deemed invalid are entitled to inherit the portion of the property that would have been allotted to their parents upon a notional partition at the time of their parents' passing.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud elaborated on the operative part of the judgment, emphasizing that the law mandates the assumption of a scenario immediately before the coparcenor's demise, including the hypothetical division of the coparcenary property between the deceased and other family members. Subsequently, once the share of the deceased coparcenor is ascertained, including the children legitimized under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, they are entitled to their rightful share in the property that would have been allocated to their deceased parent during this hypothetical partition.

The case saw compelling arguments from both sides. On one hand, there was the perspective that the Hindu Marriage Act intended to grant legitimacy to children born from void or voidable marriages, thereby conferring rights to their parents' ancestral property as well. Conversely, the opposing view stressed that legitimacy alone did not elevate a child to the status of a coparcener. In Hindu succession, coparcener property is determined by 'survivorship' rather than 'succession.' Advocates of this view argued for a plain and literal interpretation of the law, underscoring a reasonable classification between children from valid and invalid marriages to safeguard the rights of other coparceners.

This groundbreaking judgment provides much-needed clarity on a significant legal issue, reconciling divergent interpretations of the law and ensuring that children born out of void or voidable marriages are entitled to inherit their parents' property within the framework of Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law.

Case Title: Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun and Connected Cases (C.A. No. 2844/2011)

Click here to read/download order