LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Deals with legitimacy of children arising out of void and voidable marriages

Nida Khatri ,
  21 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
Relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law but the birth of a child in such relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. 
Citation :
Petitioner: Revanasiddappa Respondent: Mallikarjun Citation: SCC 2011 Vol 11

Bench:

G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

Issue:

Whether kids from void marriages have claim to property?

Facts:

• The first defendant had two wives- the third plaintiff (the first wife) and the fourth defendant (the second wife).

• The first defendant had two children from the first wife, the third plaintiff, namely, the first and second plaintiffs; and another two children from his second wife, the fourth defendant namely, the second and third defendant.

• The plaintiffs (first wife and her two children) had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants for their 1/4th share each with respect to ancestral property which had been given to the first defendant by way of grant.

• The trial court had ruled in favour of third plaintiff, then the defendants filed an appeal.

• The appellate court again ruled in favour of the 1st wife, but stated that the kids had a share in the property by citing judgement of Sarojammavs Neelamma.

• The High court of Karnataka stated that the 2nd wife's kids had no right in the property while their father was alive, but can demand equal share as co-parceners after his death.

Appellant's contentions:

• The plaintiffs contended that the first defendant had married the fourth defendant while his first marriage was subsisting.

• Therefore, the children born in the said second marriage would not be entitled to any share in the ancestral property of the first defendant as they were not coparceners.

Respondent's contentions:

• The defendants contended that the properties were not ancestral properties at all but were self-acquired properties, except for one property which was ancestral.

• First defendant contended that it was the fourth defendant who was his legally wedded wife, and not the third plaintiff and that the plaintiffs had no right to claim partition. 

• He stated that an oral partition had already taken place, so she can not demand partition now after its already done.

Final judgement:

• Relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law but the birth of a child in such relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. 

• Child born in void marriage is as much entitled to all the rights as compared to children in valid marriages.

• Apex court is pleased to make reference to larger bench and no order as to costs.

• Thus, appeal is dismissed.

Hindu Laws

 

Enroll in the Complete MasterClass Course on Hindu Laws: Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Nida Khatri?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 926




Comments





Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query