Children Born Out Of A Void Marriage Will Also Have Rights To Property Of Parents Under Hindu Marriage Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the children born out of a void marriage will also have rights to the property of parents under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The Court reiterated thus in a writ petition filed by a woman seeking to quash the order of the Tahsildar and also for a declaration that she was the legal heir of the deceased husband along with her daughter and mother-in-law.
A Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed, “The Apex Court has found that the above amendments were brought in, so as to bring social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of innocent children, etc. in the judgment of the Apex Court in Parayankandiyal Eravathkanapravan Kalliani Amma v. Devi [(1996) 4 SCC 76]. This Court also notices the judgment of the Apex Court in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun [2023 (5) KHC 486] relied on by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent wherein with reference to the amended provisions of Section 16 of the Act, the court has held that the children born out of a void marriage will also have rights to the property of the parents.”
Advocate Arun Krishna Dhan appeared for the petitioner while Senior Government Pleader Justin Jacob, Standing Counsel Paulochan Antony P., and Advocate P. Samsudin appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner (wife) married the deceased (husband) in 1983 as per Hindu rites and customs. The deceased was working as an Assistant Salesman in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Their marital life was not cordial due to many reasons and the petitioner filed a petition for claiming maintenance before the Family Court. The Court ordered the deceased to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Subsequently, the deceased had contracted a second marriage with another woman and also obtained a divorce from the petitioner. Thereafter, he passed away in 2015 and the petitioner’s request with the employer of the deceased for the terminal benefits was not processed on account of the alleged dispute regarding the legal heirs of the deceased.
Meanwhile, the second wife of the deceased applied for the legal heirship certificate and the Tahsildar found that the second wife and her children are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Tahsildar’s order also made reference to the fact that the deceased had converted to Islam and married the second wife as per Islam ceremonies. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, seeking a direction to release and make payment of the terminal/pension benefits of her deceased husband.
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… by virtue of the amended provisions under Section 16 of the Act referred to above, the three children born out of the marriage of C.Sreenivasan with the 4th respondent herein are also legitimate.”
The Court further noted that there was a marriage between the deceased and the second wife and therefore, the Court is not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner.
“… the benefits under Section 16 of the Act as amended could not be extended to the three children born to C.Sreenivasan and the 4th respondent herein. However, a reference to the counter affidavit dated 08.11.2021 would show that C.Sreenivasan married the 4th respondent in 1986 and they were living as husband and wife thereafter (paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit). After converting to Islam, they entered into a marriage under the Muslim Personal Law on 14.06.1994 as evidenced by Ext.R4(e)”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, directed the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioner, her daughter and the three children born to the deceased, and his second wife.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the employer of the deceased to release and make payment of terminal/pension benefits to the petitioner, her daughter, and mother-in-law, and the three children of the second wife in equal shares.
Cause Title- Anitha T. v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:67222)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Arun Krishna Dhan, P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, Arjun Sreedhar, and T.K. Sandeep.
Respondents: Senior GP Justin Jacob, Standing Counsel Paulochan Antony P., Advocates P. Samsudin, K.C. Antony Mathew, Anju Cletus, Jithin Lukose, M.S. Mohammed Ansary, and M. Anuroop.
