The Madras High Court has ruled that children born from void marriages are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and can inherit the father’s share in ancestral property. The judgment strengthens child rights in Hindu succession law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a significant judgment affirming that children born from a void marriage are legitimate under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore entitled to inherit the share of ancestral property that devolves upon their parent.
The ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar, who partly allowed an appeal filed by the first wife and her son in a long-running family property dispute involving the estate of late Duraisamy Udaiyar.
The judgment is being viewed as a major affirmation of children’s rights under Hindu personal law, particularly after the Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose in the extensive property holdings of Duraisamy Udaiyar, who had two wives and a total of eleven children. While the first wife, Annapottu Ammal, had seven children, the second wife, Gandhimathi Ammal, had five.
A partition suit was filed by daughters and grandchildren seeking equal division. The friction centered on whether Udaiyar’s second marriage was valid, because its validity would determine whether the children from that marriage, Plaintiffs 4 to 6 and Defendants 2 and 3, could inherit ancestral property.
The trial court had ruled in 2013 that the second marriage occurred before 1949, making it valid. This paved the way for children from the second marriage to be treated as heirs from a lawful union.
Key Issue: Validity of the Second Marriage
The High Court’s analysis dramatically shifted the momentum of the case. It found the trial court’s reasoning fundamentally flawed.
The second wife did not testify. There was no documentary evidence confirming a pre-1949 marriage. In fact, the evidence suggested the opposite; the son from the first marriage testified that the second marriage occurred in 1957, and records indicated the second wife was only a child during the period the trial court had presumed the marriage took place.
The Bench noted that the trial court relied on mere assumptions and not factual material, concluding unequivocally that the second marriage took place during the subsistence of the first marriage. It was therefore declared void.
This could have been devastating for the rights of the second wife’s children—had it not been for Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court emphasized that the invalidity of a marriage does not invalidate the children born from it. Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act explicitly protects them from social and legal disadvantage.
The Bench leaned heavily on the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, which transformed the legal landscape on this issue. The Supreme Court held that while children of void marriages do not become coparceners by birth, they are fully entitled to the property that devolves upon their parent after partition.
The Madras High Court reiterated the principle that once the father’s share in ancestral property is carved out, it becomes his absolute property, and all legitimate children, irrespective of the legality of the parents’ marriage, inherit it equally.
The Court stated that it would be unconstitutional and unjust to penalize children for no fault of theirs.
Once the validity of the second marriage was set aside, the Court recalculated the shares. The ancestral properties were first divided among Duraisamy Udaiyar and his six children from the first marriage, giving each a 1/7th share.
Udaiyar’s own 1/7th share was then distributed equally among his eleven children, leading to a clear numerical conclusion:
- Each child of the first wife received a 12/77th share.
- Each child of the second wife received 1/77th, reflecting their entitlement solely through the father.
As for the self-acquired properties of the wives, the Court held that the first wife’s assets devolved equally among her six children, while the second wife’s assets devolved among her five children.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, overturning the trial court’s finding on the date of the second marriage while safeguarding the inheritance rights of the children from the void marriage.
No costs were imposed.
Case Title:
Annapottu Ammal (died) & Ors. Vs Tamilmani & Ors.
A.S.(MD). No. 135 of 2014
READ JUDGMENT
READ MORE REPORTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS
