The Supreme Court has today reserved judgment on an issue of "whether non-marital children were entitled to have a share in the ancestral property of their parents under Hindu laws".

A three judges bench comprising of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard arguments of numerous lawyers on petitioners pending since 2011 in the Supreme Court.

The top court will also decide 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 or the ancestral property also".

A two judges bench comprising of Justice GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly has referred these issues to a larger bench on 31st March 2011. Click here to read order dated 31.03.2011

“The question which crops up in the facts of this case is whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the coparcenary (ancestral) property or whether their share is limited only to the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act”.

The court had said the provision makes it very clear that a child of a “void or voidable marriage” can only claim rights to the property of his parents, and no one else.

Order dated 31.03.2011 said, “With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today. The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus, in the shaping of which various social groups play a vital role. Very often a dominant group loses its primacy over other groups in view of ever-changing socioeconomic scenario and the consequential vicissitudes in human relationship. Law takes its own time toarticulate such social changes through a process of amendment. That is why in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static. If one looks at the history of development of Hindu Law it will be clear that it was never static and has changed from time to time to meet the challenges of the changingsocial pattern in different time".

Case Details:-

Civil Appeal  No(s).  2844/2011
REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR.                              Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
MALLIKARJUN & ORS.                                 Respondent(s)