SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 308

Judges : SUKUMARAN
JANU - Appellant
Versus
YESODA - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 54 of 1983
Decided On : 07/29/1988
Advocates Appeared :
M.V. Bose; For Appellants K.P. Balasubramanian; P.V. Madhavan Nambiar; For Respondents

S.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 grants legitimacy to children born in a marriage, even if the marriage is null and void, and their rights should be recognized in the distribution of the patrimony.

Headnote:

Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - S.16

Fact of the Case:

Three minor girls and their mother claim a share in the property of Gopalan, who passed away in 1975. The defendants resist the claim, contending that there was no valid marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Gopalan, and therefore the plaintiffs cannot claim the status of legitimate children of Gopalan.

Finding of the Court:

The courts below upheld the defense contention and denied relief to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that S.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 should grant them relief even if the marriage is found to be null and void.

Issues: Validity of the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Gopalan, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in Gopalan's property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, and the amendment introduced by the Hindu Marriage Amendment Act 1976, to grant legitimacy to children born in a marriage, even if the marriage is null and void. The court emphasized that the rights of such children should be recognized in the distribution of the patrimony.

Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the court directed the trial court to consider the entitlement of the plaintiffs to their share in the property.

Judgment :-

1. Three minor girls and their mother -- plaintiffs -- are before this Court. They claim a share in the property of one Gopalan. Gopalan is now no more. He passed away in the year 1975. The 1st defendant is admittedly the widow and 2nd defendant, the son. Portions of the properties have been conveyed to defendants 3 to 5. All the defendants resist the plaint claim. They contend that there was no valid marriage between the 1st plaintiff and deceased Gopalan, and that consequently the plaintiffs 2 to 4 cannot claim the status of legitimate children of Gopalan.

2. Gopalan had married the 1st defendant. She had some ailments, which in effect denied to Gopalan the comforts of matrimony. He did not, however, snap that relationship. He married a second time: the 1st plaintiff was the new bride. There is massive evidence to justify the finding of the courts below that a marriage had in fact been solemnised between Gopalan and the 1st plaintiff. It was, however, contended that, in the eye of law, there was no marriage between Gopalan and 1st plaintiff, in view of the subsistence of the earlier marriage and the legal taboo against a marriage during the subsistence of an earlier one (vide S.11 of the Act). When the second marriage is thus null and void, the 1st plaintiff cannot claim the status of a wife and plaintiffs 2 to 4 cannot claim to be the legal heirs is the finding of the courts below. The courts below have thus upheld the defence contention and denied relief to the plaintiffs. They have come up in appeal.

3. S.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been pressed into service by the plaintiffs, to claim the relief, even in a situation where marriage of the 1st plaintiff with Gopalan is found to be null and void.

4. This contention needs careful examination, in the light of the statutory scheme and the relevant facts.

5. S.16 of the Act underwent an amendment, the Hindu Marriage Amendment Act 1976, Act 68 of 1976. The Section as it stood before the amendment reads as follows:

"S. 16. Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of any marriage under S.11 or S.12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if it had been dissolved instead of having been declared null and void or annulled by a decree of nullity shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is declared null and void or annulled by a decree of nullity any rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents."

The new Section is:

"S. 16. (1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under S.11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under S.12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under S.12, any rights in or to the pr












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top