Supreme Court Decision: In a verdict given by a three-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud, it was cleared that the ruling would be applicable only to Hindu joint family properties that Hindu Mitakshara Law governs.
The judgment was given in reference to a two-judge bench judgment in Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011), which also stated that the children born in void/voidable marriages have rights on their parents’ properties which could be self-acquired or inherited.
Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1995, says that the children born out of invalid marriages are entitled to inherit their parents’ properties. However, they will have no right over coparcenary shares.
Also, it should be noted that children born out of invalid marriages are conferred with legitimacy.
The three-judge bench also stated that in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, Coparceners' interest in a Hindu Mitakshara property is defined as the proportion of the property that would have been given to them if the property had been partitioned immediately before their death.
The birth of a child in a situation like this must be regarded independently of the parents' relationship." A child born from such a relationship is innocent and has the same rights as other children born from legitimate marriage.
This is the core of the Section 16(3) modification," wrote the division bench of Justices (retired) GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly in their 2011 decision. The bench also stated that the daughters have been granted equal rights in the same manner.
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that any child of a marriage that is declared null and void under Section 11 and would have been legitimate if the marriage had been genuine, shall be recognized as legitimate.
However, Section 16 (3) states that it shall not be construed as conferring any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, on any child of a null and void marriage or a marriage annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, in any case where, but for the passage of this act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights due to his not being the legitimate child of his parents.