Revanasiddappa vs Mallikarjun case held that the child conceived out of a live-in relationship is innocent and is qualified for every freedom and advantage accessible to children conceived illegitimately. This is the crux of section 16(3) of the altered Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
FACTS:
- The inquiry raised under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court, in this case, is whether an illegitimate child under Section 16(3)of the Hindu Marriage Act is qualified to inherit the tribal property of his folks regardless of whether his share is simply confined to oneself procured property of his folks?
- While examining this issue, the court investigated its own points of reference and came out with an alternate view. Section 16 (3) discusses the privileges of children conceived out of voidable and void marriages. It says that they can attest freedoms to the property of their folks.
- The court additionally saw that the word property used in this section isn’t qualified with anything that would recommend that the legislature intended to keep the meaning of the property general and expansive in this section, and not explicitly a familial or self-obtained property.
LEGAL ISSUES:
1. Whether the child conceived out of a live-in relationship qualified for the privileges accessible to a child conceived out of wedlock?
RATIO & DECISION:
The bench was led by G.S Singhvi and A.K Ganguly, JJ.
- Then, at that point, the judges talked about finally what was the position taken by the courts before in different cases.
- Plainly before the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, an illegitimate child of a Sudra could inherit his dad’s property, however, presently he is suspended.
- Their explanation is that the legislature is quiet regarding which property is an illegitimate child qualified to succeed, regardless of whether a self-gained or familial one.
- The court says that the illegitimate child can just inherit the property of his folks and not of others.
- The court further dives upon the issue and says that while interpreting section 16(3) the courts should peruse it with article 39(f).
- The court further says that while construing the ideas of property freedoms, Article 300A likewise becomes an integral factor.
- It discusses that an individual will not be denied his property saved by the power of law. However, it is a sacred right and not a fundamental right, rather, it actually gives the right to an individual to not be denied his property.
- In the current case, Section 16 (3) has no capability before the word property in this manner it might mean a self gained property or a tribal yet with the end goal of the inheritance right of an illegitimate child, he/she can inherit just the property of their folks and not of different family members.
CONCLUSION:
- The freedoms and status of an illegitimate child have consistently been in dispute and no close-to-home law needs to address it.
- However, there have been many changes in the Hindu individual law yet there is yet an advanced age of thinking for the draft-producers regarding other individual laws to be specific the Muslim and the Christian law.
- However, the Hindu law is reforming the other two individual laws that are as yet lagging in granting the authenticity status to the illegitimate children. While Hindu law, however, reforming isn’t at all ideal.
- The situation of an illegitimate child brought into the world to a Sudra was vastly improved when contrasted with the current individual law.
Found Revanasiddappa vs Mallikarjun Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT
