Right to Inheritance of Hindu Joint Family Property for Children born outside wedlock

The case involved a partition dispute over the self-acquired and ancestral property between the children of the first defendant from his first and second wives. The High Court dismissed the claim of the children from the second wife. The present case arose in appeal by these children with the question whether the children from the second wife, being illegitimate, are entitled to a share in the coparcenary property or whether their share is limited to the self-acquired property of the parents. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act was amended in 1976 to deem the children born of a void or voidable marriage as legitimate so they do not face the stigma of illegitimacy and suffer the consequences of their parent’s actions. However, Section 16(3) limited the property rights of such children to their parents only. This has been interpreted in previous decisions, Jinia Keotin v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Neelamma v Sarojamma, to limit the share of children born outside a valid marriage to the self-acquired properties of their parents. Disagreeing with these precedents, the Court held that the children born of a void or voidable marriage shall have rights in the ancestral property as well as there is no definition of property in Section 16(3). It stated, ‘if they have been declared legitimate, then they cannot be discriminated against and they will be at par with other legitimate children, and be entitled to all the rights in the property of their parents, both self-acquired and ancestral.’ The court relied on the constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity and the socially beneficial purpose of removing the stigma of illegitimacy to arrive at this construction of the provision.