Family Law

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun

(2023) 10 SCC 1

Citation: (2023) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 1 September 2023
Bench: Three-Judge Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Facts

The case arose from disputes involving children born from marriages that were:
void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act; or
voidable and later annulled under Section 12.
These children claimed rights in property belonging to their parents.
Some properties were self-acquired by a parent.
Others formed part of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family.
Earlier decisions had differed on whether Section 16 HMA:
merely removed the social stigma of illegitimacy; or
also allowed such children to claim property connected with the parent’s coparcenary.
A larger Bench was asked to explain the meaning of Section 16(3), which limits their rights to the “property of the parents.”

Whether children of void or voidable marriages are coparceners by birth.
Whether they can claim a share in joint Hindu family property.
What is included within the expression “property of the parents” under Section 16(3).

Section 16(1) and 16(2) confer statutory legitimacy upon children of void and annulled voidable marriages.
Section 16(3) limits their property rights to the property of their parents and not that of any other person.
Such a child:
is not a coparcener by birth;
cannot demand partition of the joint family while the parent is alive;
has no direct birthright in the shares of other coparceners.
However, the parent’s own share in coparcenary property is the parent’s property for succession.
On the parent’s death:
a notional partition is conducted under Section 6 HSA;
the parent’s share is first calculated;
the child under Section 16 may inherit that share.
The restriction prevents rights against persons other than the parents but does not exclude the child from the parent’s actual interest.

The Court rejected both extreme positions.
It did not treat the child as a full coparcener because that would give a birthright against:
uncles;
grandparents;
other coparceners, whose property Section 16(3) expressly protects.
At the same time, it refused to interpret the statute so narrowly that the parent’s coparcenary share became inaccessible.
A coparcener has a definite though fluctuating interest in the joint property.
Upon death, that interest is quantified through the statutory notional-partition process.
Once quantified, the share belongs to the deceased parent’s estate.
The child can inherit that share because it is property of the parent, not property of a stranger.
Thus, the correct process is:
determine the parent’s share immediately before death;
separate that share notionally from the joint estate;
distribute it among the parent’s heirs, including children protected by Section 16.
The judgment balances:
dignity and equality of children, who are not responsible for their parents’ invalid marriage;
vested rights of other coparceners.
The Court stressed that legitimacy under Section 16 is substantive and not merely symbolic.

Children of void or voidable marriages are legitimate for the purposes of Section 16.
They are not coparceners by birth and cannot directly claim joint family property.
They can inherit:
the parent’s self-acquired property; and
the share that the parent would receive upon a notional partition of coparcenary property.
They have no right in the property of any person other than their parents.
Use this case for: the precise property rights of children born from void or voidable Hindu marriages.