Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
“The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages”
TL;DR
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court settled a long-standing debate on whether children born from void or voidable marriages, who are legitimized under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, have rights to ancestral/coparcenary property. The Court held that such children are NOT coparceners in the Hindu Undivided Family but ARE entitled to a share in their parent's interest in coparcenary property upon notional partition.
The Bottom Line
Children legitimized under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot claim coparcenary rights but can inherit their parent's share in joint family property. This protects both the children's dignity and the existing rights of legitimate coparceners.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
First Marriage
Mallikarjun married Revanasiddappa (his first wife)
First Marriage
Mallikarjun married Revanasiddappa (his first wife)
Second (Void) Marriage
Mallikarjun contracted a second marriage with Lakshmi while first marriage subsisted - constituting bigamy under Hindu law
Second (Void) Marriage
Mallikarjun contracted a second marriage with Lakshmi while first marriage subsisted - constituting bigamy under Hindu law
Birth of Anand
Anand was born from the second (void) marriage between Mallikarjun and Lakshmi
Birth of Anand
Anand was born from the second (void) marriage between Mallikarjun and Lakshmi
Death of Mallikarjun
Mallikarjun passed away, triggering succession disputes
Death of Mallikarjun
Mallikarjun passed away, triggering succession disputes
Suit for Partition Filed
Partition suit filed in Trial Court seeking division of joint family properties
Suit for Partition Filed
Partition suit filed in Trial Court seeking division of joint family properties
High Court Judgment
Karnataka High Court delivered judgment on the property rights question
High Court Judgment
Karnataka High Court delivered judgment on the property rights question
Supreme Court Two-Judge Bench
Initial Supreme Court hearing by two-judge bench that held children from void marriages have rights only in self-acquired property
Supreme Court Two-Judge Bench
Initial Supreme Court hearing by two-judge bench that held children from void marriages have rights only in self-acquired property
Three-Judge Bench Judgment
Supreme Court three-judge bench delivers landmark judgment clarifying rights of children from void/voidable marriages
Three-Judge Bench Judgment
Supreme Court three-judge bench delivers landmark judgment clarifying rights of children from void/voidable marriages
The Story
The case arose from a dispute over property rights of children born from a second marriage entered into while the first marriage was subsisting (bigamous marriage).
Revanasiddappa (the appellant in the lead case) was married to Mallikarjun. However, Mallikarjun subsequently contracted a second marriage with Lakshmi while his first marriage was still subsisting. From this second marriage, a son Anand was born in 1983.
After Mallikarjun's death, disputes arose regarding the partition of joint family properties. The key question was whether Anand, being born from a void marriage (bigamous union), had any rights in the ancestral/coparcenary property of the Hindu Undivided Family.
The Trial Court and the High Court of Karnataka took different views on the matter. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in an earlier round (2011) had held that children born from void marriages have rights only in the self-acquired property of their parents, not in coparcenary property.
The matter was eventually referred to a three-judge bench to conclusively settle the law on whether Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which confers legitimacy on children born from void/voidable marriages, also confers coparcenary rights or only limited inheritance rights.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Section 16 confers full legitimacy
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act uses the word "legitimate" without any qualification. If the legislature intended limited legitimacy, it would have said so expressly. Once a child is legitimate, they should have all rights of legitimate children including coparcenary rights.
Right to equality under Article 14
Denying coparcenary rights to children legitimized under Section 16 violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Such children should not be discriminated against for the fault of their parents.
Previous judgments supporting broader rights
The two-judge bench decisions in Jinia Keotin and Bharatha Matha should be reconsidered as they take a narrow view inconsistent with the beneficial purpose of Section 16.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Limited scope of Section 16
Section 16 expressly states that children shall be legitimate "for all purposes". However, this must be read with the limitation that such children have rights only in the "property of their parents" - not in any joint family or coparcenary property.
Coparcenary status requires lineage
Under Mitakshara law, coparcenary rights arise by birth in a family with unbroken male lineage from a common ancestor. Children from void marriages lack this essential qualification as their parents' marriage itself was legally non-existent.
Protection of existing coparceners
Granting coparcenary rights to children from void marriages would adversely affect the vested rights of existing legitimate coparceners who had no role in the invalid marriage.
Legislative intent
The legislature deliberately used the phrase "property of their parents" in Section 16, indicating that the rights are limited to what parents own individually, not what belongs to the larger joint family.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu coparcenary law. The Court examined the historical evolution of legitimacy concepts, the purpose behind Section 16, the nature of coparcenary under Mitakshara law, and the impact of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. The Court balanced the need to protect children from void marriages against the rights of legitimate coparceners.
Section 16 of the HMA provides for a fiction by which children born of void or voidable marriages are conferred with legitimacy. This fiction, however, is limited in its scope and cannot be extended to confer coparcenary rights.
Para 54
The Court clarified that legal fictions must be confined to the purpose for which they are created.
The coparcenary under the Mitakshara school is founded on the notion of succession by birth. A person becomes a coparcener by being born into a family which traces an unbroken male lineage from a common male ancestor within four degrees.
Para 72
This explains why children from void marriages cannot automatically become coparceners - they lack the fundamental requirement of birth in a legitimate line of descent.
While Section 16 children are not coparceners, they are entitled to claim a share in the property of their parent. The expression "property of their parents" must be interpreted to include the share which a parent would have if a notional partition of the coparcenary property were to take place.
Para 89
This is the key interpretive innovation - using notional partition to determine what constitutes the parent's property.
The interpretation we have adopted balances competing considerations: it protects the interests of children born from void or voidable marriages without unduly affecting the rights of other coparceners who are blameless.
Para 95
The Court's balancing approach protects children while respecting existing property rights.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The appeals were allowed to the extent of clarifying the law. Matters were remanded to lower courts/tribunals for fresh consideration in light of the principles laid down.
Directions Issued
- Children from void/voidable marriages are deemed legitimate under Section 16 HMA for all purposes
- Such children do NOT acquire coparcenary status in the Hindu Undivided Family
- Such children ARE entitled to a share in the "property of their parents" which includes the parent's undivided interest in coparcenary property
- Upon the parent's death, a notional partition shall be conducted to determine the parent's share, which the Section 16 child can inherit
- The 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act does not confer coparcenary status on children legitimized under Section 16
Key Legal Principles Established
Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act creates "qualified legitimacy" - sufficient for inheritance but not for coparcenary status
Coparcenary status under Mitakshara law requires birth in an unbroken male lineage from a common ancestor
Children from void marriages can inherit their parent's share in coparcenary property through notional partition
Legal fictions (like legitimacy under Section 16) must be confined to their legislative purpose
The principle of notional partition applies to determine what constitutes "property of their parents"
Children should not suffer for the wrongs of their parents - the beneficial purpose of Section 16
The 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act does not expand the scope of legitimacy under Section 16
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are born from a void marriage (like a bigamous marriage), you are still considered legitimate under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act
- You have the right to inherit property from your parents, including their share in any joint family property
- However, you are not automatically a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family and cannot claim coparcenary rights
- Your share will be determined by conducting a "notional partition" - calculating what your parent would have received if partition happened
- This ruling protects your dignity and inheritance rights while respecting the rights of other family members
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Equality before law
Article 14
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: The Court considered whether denying coparcenary rights to Section 16 children violates equality, but held that the classification is reasonable given the different nature of coparcenary rights.
Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 21
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The right to dignity and livelihood formed part of the Court's consideration in ensuring Section 16 children have meaningful property rights.
Statutory Provisions
Section 16
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate... (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (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... 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.”
Relevance: The core provision conferring legitimacy on children from void marriages while limiting their property rights to "property of their parents".
Section 6 (as amended in 2005)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
“On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.”
Relevance: The Court clarified that this amendment makes daughters coparceners only where they would otherwise qualify as coparceners - it does not extend coparcenary status to Section 16 children.
Section 11
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Any marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5.”
Relevance: Defines void marriages including bigamous marriages - the context in which Section 16 children are born.
Related Cases & Precedents
Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi
distinguished(2003) 1 SCC 730
Earlier two-judge bench decision that held Section 16 children have rights only in self-acquired property of parents. This view was clarified and the scope expanded to include parent's share in coparcenary property.
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan
distinguished(2010) 11 SCC 483
Another two-judge bench decision taking a restrictive view of Section 16. The present judgment harmonizes this with a broader interpretation.
Neelamma v. Sarojamma
cited(2006) 9 SCC 612
Held that children from void marriage have right to claim maintenance from joint family property - supportive of broader interpretation of Section 16.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
cited(2020) 9 SCC 1
Landmark judgment on the 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act regarding daughters' coparcenary rights - relevant for understanding the scope of the amendment.
Prakash v. Phulavati
cited(2016) 2 SCC 36
Discussed the nature of coparcenary rights and when they crystallize - relevant for understanding why Section 16 children cannot be coparceners.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun Case Explained in Kannada
English
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun Case Explained in English
Tamil
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun Case Explained in Tamil
Telugu
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun Case Explained in Telugu
Hindi
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun Case Explained in Hindi
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.