The Kerala High Court has ruled that children born out of void marriages are legitimate and entitled to retain rights to their parents’ property. The court’s verdict came while awarding terminal and pension benefits to three children born from a man’s invalid second marriage, which occurred without the dissolution of his first marriage.
A single-judge bench of Justice Harisankar V Menon cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) and the amended Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasising that “children born out of a void marriage will also have rights to the property of the parents”, reaffirming the legitimacy of the three children born from the marriage between a man and his second wife.
The case involved the petitioner, Anitha T, who married C Sreenivasan in 1983 as per Hindu rites, and they had a daughter born in 1984. During the marriage, the deceased allegedly contracted a second marriage with Leela, the 4th respondent and obtained an ex-parte divorce from the petitioner, which was later set aside after being challenged by the petitioner. Sreenivasan passed away on August 3, 2015, and the petitioner’s request for terminal benefits was delayed due to a legal heir dispute. The 4th respondent, however, obtained a legal heirship certificate, which excluded the petitioner and her daughter, citing the deceased’s conversion to Islam. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court, arguing the conversion did not dissolve her marriage and was used to undermine her and her daughter’s claims.
The petitioner contended that her marriage to Sreenivasan was never legally dissolved, and therefore, the second marriage with the respondent was void. She cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), which held that a Hindu man cannot marry again without legally dissolving his first marriage, even if he converts to another religion. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the legal heirship certificate was wrongly issued based on Muslim Personal Law, as Sreenivasan’s conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage to Leela did not dissolve his first marriage under Hindu law.
The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court rulings in Sarla Mudgal and Lilly Thomas v. Union of India (2000), affirmed that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by mere conversion to another religion, and any subsequent marriage without a legal divorce is void.
“If a Hindu who had solemnised a marriage under the Act with a Hindu female, cannot bring to an end the marital ties with the Hindu wife by mere conversion to another religion, so long as the earlier marriage is subsisting. There cannot be a reference to Personal Laws for that matter. Applying the above principles to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was married to C.Sreenivasan on 08.10.1983 and a daughter was also born out of this wedlock. It might be that C.Sreenivasan later married Leela…Without getting the marriage with the petitioner herein dissolved as provided by law, the marriage of C.Sreenivasan with the 4th respondent herein cannot be legalised.” the court noted.
However, the court also considered the rights of the children born from the void marriage stating that “this Court cannot be oblivious to the rights of the said children of C.Sreenivasan and the 4th respondent.” Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008), the court ruled “Though the marriage with the 4th respondent cannot be held to be a valid marriage, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in that marriage, there were three children born to C.Sreenivasan. In such circumstances, the rights of the said three children is also to be taken into consideration by this Court. In such circumstances, it is to be held that the said three children are also entitled for terminal benefits of the deceased.”
Additionally, the court referred to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which legitimises children from void and voidable marriages. “By virtue of the amended provisions under Section 16 of the Act … the three children born out of the marriage of C.Sreenivasan with the 4th respondent herein are also legitimate,” the court observed.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the legal heirship certificate issued to the respondent, but upheld the rights of her children to inherit Sreenivasan’s estate.
Comments
0 comment