Section 16 HMA| Children From Void And Voidable Marriage Entitled To Inherit Their Parents' Property: Orissa High Court
The Court said that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, legitimate children including those legitimised under Section 16 of the HMA, would fall under the category of Class-I heirs, giving them an undisputed right to inherit the self-acquired property of their parents.
The Orissa High Court held that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), children born from void or voidable marriages, where the deceased parent was a Mitakshara coparcener, would be entitled to inherit their share in the ancestral property, limited to the portion that would have been allotted to their parent upon a notional partition before their death.
A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed, “Section 16 of the HMA confers legitimacy on children born from void and voidable marriages, ensuring that they are entitled to inherit their parents’ property.”
The Court explained, “Under the HSA, legitimate children including those legitimised under Section 16 of the HMA, fall under the category of Class-I heirs, giving them an undisputed right to inherit the self-acquired property of their parents.”
Senior Advocate B. Baug represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Bibekananda Bhuyan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent went before the Family Court seeking a declaration that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased and was his rightful heir. The Respondent claimed that her marriage with the deceased took place in 1966 as per Hindu rites and customs, and that they resided together and raised two sons. She alleged that the Appellant was only a nurse who worked with the deceased and did not have any legitimate relationship with him.
The Family Court decreed the suit in 2021 and declared the Respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and was further entitled to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property. Aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court, the Appellant approached the High Court contending that her lawyer died during the proceedings and due to disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, she was unaware of the proceedings, and that she had not been given a fair opportunity to present her case.
The High Court set aside the judgment and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. Considering that the Respondent was 80 years old and the Appellant 70 years old, the Court issued an interim arrangement regarding the disputed property and directed that until the final outcome of the case, the usufructs arising from the property would be shared 60% in favour of the Respondent and 40% in favour of the Appellant.
Following the remission, the Family Court reheard the matter and passed a fresh judgment once again declaring the Respondent as the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the deceased and, thereby reaffirming her right to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property. As a result of the Family Court’s decision, the Appellant once again approached the High Court by way of an appeal.
Contentions
The Appellant contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, arguing that the Respondent’s prayer for a declaration of marital status should have been brought before the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rather than under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984(Family Courts Act). She further submitted that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than three years after the passing of the deceased, making it time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act). Challenging the finding of the Family Court that the Respondent was the sole legal heir of the deceased, the Appellant submitted that the children born out of her relationship with the deceased were legitimate children as per Section 16 of the HMA and were entitled to inherit their father’s self-acquired property as Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), and that the Appellant’s claim, as well as that of her children, had to be considered.
The Respondent contended that the Family Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, as the suit sought a declaration of her marital status, which falls squarely within the Family Court’s purview. Additionally, while acknowledging that the Appellant’s children were legitimate under Section 16 of the HMA, it would not affect the Respondent’s status as the lawful wife or her right to inherit the ancestral property.
Reasoning of the Court
Referring to the Family Courts Act, the Court noted that Section 7(1)(b) was broad enough to cover the relief sought by the Respondent, and further Section 8 reinforced the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court by expressly barring Civil Courts from dealing with matters covered under Section 7.
Regarding the Appellant’s objection of the suit being time-barred under the Limitation Act, the Bench noted that proceedings before the Family Court are not subject to a strict limitation period. It added, “A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such a declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when the dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights. The concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in cases involving marital status”, it added.
While deciding the issue of whether the direction of the Family Court deprived the Appellant’s children of the properties of the deceased and violated Section 16 of the HMA, the Court noted that the Family Court’s order did not clarify whether the Appellant’s children would have rights over both the ancestral and self-acquired property of the deceased.
The Court referred to the Apex Court’s decision in Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors. (2023), which held that Section 16(3) of the HMA limits such children's rights to the parent's share in joint family property and self-acquired property. It clarified that a notional partition must be presumed before the parent’s death to determine their share, after which all legal heirs, including children from void or voidable marriages, are entitled to their share.
The Bench observed, “Accordingly, we find merit in the Appellant’s concern and deem it necessary to modify the Family Court’s order by incorporating a specific clarification. This Court holds that the children born from the Appellant and Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty are obviously entitled to inherit his self-acquired property. Additionally, where the deceased parent was a Mitakshara coparcener, such children shall also inherit their share in the ancestral property, limited to the portion that would have been allotted to their parent upon a notional partition before their death. The Family Court’s order shall be modified to reflect this clarification.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the and modified the Family Court’s decision to the extent that the Appellant’s children would have the right to inherit the self-acquired property of the deceased, as well as in his ancestral property, subject to the portion that would have been allotted to him upon a notional partition before his death, as per Section 6(3) of the HAS.
Cause Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anasuya Mohanty (MATA No. 04 of 2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate B. Baug
Respondent: Senior Advocate Bibekananda Bhuyan; Advocate S.S. Bhuyan
