Inheritance Rights of Illegitimate Children in India: Unravelling the Legal Debate
By AGNIBEENA GHOSH
In India, the status and inheritance rights of illegitimate children have been a subject of legal debate and scrutiny. While the Indian Succession Act and Section 37 explicitly exclude illegitimate children from inheriting their putative father’s estate, they are entitled to maintenance until they can support themselves, subject to good behaviour, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC). The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, further governs the inheritance rights of illegitimate children, specifying that they are entitled only to their parents’ property and not of any other relation. However, a recent landmark ruling by the Supreme Court has shed new light on the issue, affirming that illegitimate children are entitled to all rights in the property of their parents, both self-acquired and ancestral.
The legal complexities surrounding the inheritance rights of illegitimate children were brought before the Supreme Court in a case involving Revanasiddappa. The Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly disagreed with previous interpretations of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which stated that “such children are only entitled to the property of their parents and not of any other relation.” This divergence in interpretation sparked a comprehensive examination of the rights of illegitimate children in relation to their parents’ property and their potential coparcenary right over the ancestral properties of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
During the court proceedings, some counsel argued in favour of granting illegitimate children equal shares in parental property, alongside children born to legitimate marriages. However, others raised doubts about whether this property should include the parent’s self-acquired property or the inherited ancestral property. The complexities of existing jurisprudence were explored, and various nuances emerged from Section 16, providing clarification on the property rights of illegitimate children and limiting them to parental property. The only restriction imposed by Section 16(3) is that such children have no rights over properties of other members of the extended family.
The genesis of the issue traces back to a trial court in Karnataka, which ruled in 2005 that children born of illegitimate marriages had no coparcenary rights over ancestral properties of their parents. The district judge later overturned this ruling. The case then reached the Karnataka High Court, which asserted that Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act clarifies that illegitimate children are only entitled to their parents’ property and no one else’s. However, the court clarified that once the HUF/ancestral property is divided upon the death of the parent, the illegitimate child can have a share in the portion of property that accrued to their parent, but only if the parent died without a will.
When the Karnataka High Court’s ruling was challenged before the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench referred it to a three-judge bench in 2011, posing the question of whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the coparcenary property or whether their share is limited to only the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
In the 2011 ruling, the bench emphasized that the relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law, but the birth of a child in such a relationship must be treated independently of the parents’ relationship. A child born in such circumstances is entitled to all the rights granted to children born in a valid marriage. This, according to the court, was the essence of the amendment in Section 16(3).
Outside of India, there has been a progressive shift in legitimacy laws towards more compassionate treatment of illegitimate children over time. Early Roman, Spanish, and English law imposed limitations on the inheritance rights of such children, and during the Middle Ages, illegitimate children were often considered as outlaws in various European countries.
Legitimacy lawsuits primarily revolve around two issues: a child’s right to inheritance or the pursuit of support payments from a father who denies his paternity. In most cases, legitimacy is presumed unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise. Merely casting doubt on the mother’s reputation is inadequate to challenge paternity.
The legal debate surrounding the inheritance rights of illegitimate children remains ongoing, with further hearings scheduled to address the complex nuances of the issue. It is absolutely mandatory to remember that the law also defines the children of sex workers, who are often forced and coerced into having babies as being illegitimate. Having unequal laws therefore endangers both the child and their mother and prevents them from living a fulfilling, dignified life.
In the current political scenario of the nation, it is crucial for the judiciary to strike a balance between upholding the rights of illegitimate children and preserving the legal frameworks governing property inheritance in Indian society. In India, especially among the religious orthodoxy illegitimacy is a huge stigma which leads to the dilemma regarding the rights of illegitimate children to ancestral property. It is essential to remember that the child is not born of their own accord but is brought into the world by their parents. Hence, they should not face the brunt of their parent’s decisions. The ultimate goal should be to ensure fairness, justice, and equality for all children, regardless of their parentage.
