| CITATION | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1117, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 73 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | February 22ND 2021 |
| PLAINTIFF | KHUSHI RAM |
| RESPONDENT | NAWAL SINGH & OTHERS |
| BENCH | R. Subhash Reddy, Ashok Bhushan |
INTRODUCTION
This case belongs to prize money taxability as per Supreme Court of India’s judgement. It deals with legal issues pertaining to property and the violation of the illegitimate children’s rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The primary question of the case concerned the capacity of children born out of wedlock to inherit from the estate of a person who was their father, though he never married the mother.
The debated amendment made this August body realize that illegitimate children are also entitled to inherit the property of father even though the parents were not lawfully wedlock. In essence, the Court highlighted equal status and sought to promote the rights of children regardless of the parents’ marital status.
The position of the law, as far as children born out of a void or voidable marriage are concerned, was that they do not have the same rights as legitimate children as far as the self acquired property of the parents are concerned, by using the word “legitimate” it again clarified that this does not apply.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The specific theme that the case focuses on pertains to the legal child custody of a progeny in a relation devoid of marriage among the parents.
- To put the claim in the legal context, the plaintiff KHUSHI RAM said that the deceased was his biological father and thus he was entitled a share of the property of the deceased. But the couple into which his parents were married was not legally wed.
- The issue was developed when Khushi Ram wanted to claim the property of his dead father by making a strong contention against the decision of the lower court that awarded him no rights for the legitimate property on the basis of his illegitimate birth.
ISSUES RAISED
- The primary legal question was whether illegitimate children could inherit property from their father under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Specifically, the case questioned the interpretation and applicability of Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, which deals with the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF
Khushi Ram argued that since he is the natural son of the deceased, he had rights to inherit his father’s property, having married the mother and even if she is divorced or separated. He further postured that merely because his parents did not go through the precincts of a marriage formal process, then he should not be entitled to his rightful portion in the estate left behind for him. In this case, the plaintiff sought that under section 16 of the Hindu succession Act of 1956 which concerns children born from void or voidable marriages the appellant has same rights as legitimate children in the matter of inheritance. He stressed that the law does not distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate child when it comes to succession and inheritance especially after the amendments of the Act in 2005. Khushi Ram argued that the recognition of the applicant’s claims as someone entitled to an inheritance based on the absence of a legal marriage between his parents would violate his constitutional rights and freedoms, primarily the right to equal rights and the non-discrimination of birth. He then urged that it shall be unlawful to discriminate any kid based on their delivery status for they equally deserve protection as any other citizen. The plaintiff relied on the Colorado Cases and other laws to argue that the claimant was entitled to succeed to his parent’s property under the Hindu Succession Act. He submitted that the precedents of judgments and the law on this subject entitle such children to share in their parents’ estates. Thus, Khushi Ram also relied on ethical and pragmatic wall arguments stating that the children should not be punished for situations that are beyond their control like the status of the parents’ marriage. He argued that it would be inequitable, and unfair for the illegitimate children not to be entitled to be an heir to their fathers as other lawful children do.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents supported their opinions with the views they said that because Khushi Ram parents did not have a legal right to marry, then Khushi Ram was a bastard. They argued that under the Hindu law as it was practiced before the new codes, children born out of wedlock do not have equal claim to property as the legitimate children this especially in the matter of inheritance. The respondents said that before the passage of the amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, there was differential treatment between acknowledged and acknowledged children in the sense that only the acknowledged child had a legal right to inherit including claims on the ancestral property of his or her father. Respondents submitted that while proposing the claim it should be adjudged strictly in accordance with the law in force at the time when the father died and not at the time the amendments have been made. They argued that the former provision of Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act did not entitle the illegitimate child all forms of inheritance as provided in the Act. They said that as much as the Section offers some rights to the children born in void or voidable marriage, there is no provision of the same rights to the illegitimate children who are born out of wedlock. The respondents asserted that under Hindu law, which governs the principles of property rights as well as the succession laws, the illegitimate offspring of a man cannot have any legal claims to inherit from their fathers’ self-acquired properties. Thus, they focused on the differentiation that is present in inheritance laws and endeavored to maintain the primacy of this kind of interpretation The respondents opined that the proposition to upgrade the illegitimate offspring’s status to that of an inheritor endangers legal standards and property rights. They argued that, however, the law has become beneficial for children’s rights in some ways, granting all illegitimate children full inheritance rights will have ramifications that need to be taken into account.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court recently tackled the issue of inheritance rights, for children born out of wedlock in relation to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The case delved into whether children born outside of marriages could inherit their fathers property. After consideration the Supreme Court upheld the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by the 2005 Amendment. The Court determined that this amendment broadened the scope of inheritance rights for children born from voidable marriages ensuring they have rights to inherit alongside legitimate children. Furthermore this principle was extended to children born from relationships where their parents were not formally married. In emphasizing principles of equality and non discrimination enshrined in the constitution the Court argued that denying inheritance rights to illegitimate children based on their parents marital status would contradict notions of fairness and equality. The Court underscored that all offspring should be entitled to inheritance rights regardless of how they came into this world. Importantly post 2005 amendment, distinctions, between illegitimate offspring concerning inheritance rights prescribed by Hindu law were no longer considered valid by the Supreme Court.
The amendment sought to address wrongs and guarantee that every child regardless of their birth circumstances has the right to inherit from their parents.
ANALYSIS
This can be perceived as the court’s legislative ruling for the Supreme Court, which is a major boost to inheritance rights in Hindu Succession Act. It has aligned Indian law with modern principles of equality and justice by confirming that illegitimate children have the same rights of inheritance like their legitimate counterparts. This represents a general swing within society where children are recognized even against whatever situation they were born under. The judgments uphold some constitutional values such as fairness before law and non-discrimination. Justice through this judgment ensures that irrespective of the parents’ marital status all children should be able to inherit, therefore it keeps up with ideas about what is right and equal under the constitution.This becomes another step taken to correct previous historical injustices; towards social equity.
It explains section 16 of HSA relating to estate distribution among other clauses that were modified in reference to children from voidable marriages and nullity unions when it comes into picture while addressing birth during marriages that are not valid legally. The court emphasizes on a wider range application including children who are born out of wedlock when considering this extension. This move makes legislation more recent and does away with outdated distinctions concerning lawful and unlawful offspring.
Hindu legal system’s understanding about property rights, succession and other related matters are altered by this judgement
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111318540/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/hindu-women-rights-respect-case-khushi-ram-v-nawal-singh/
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7486-analysis-of-a-hindu-woman-s-right-to-enter-family-settlements-in-light-of-khushi-ram-v-s-nawal-singh.html
This article is written by Anushka Sharma student of the School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru; Inter at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
