Do Children From a Void or Second Marriage Get in Their Father's Ancestral Property?

Yes. In Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors. (2023), a three-judge Supreme Court Bench held that a child born of a marriage that is void under Section 11 or voidable and annulled under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is statutorily legitimate under Section 16. That child inherits from the parents only, and where the parent was a Mitakshara coparcener, the child takes a share out of the parent's deemed notional partition share. The strict limit is that the child does not become a coparcener by birth in the larger joint family and cannot claim against the property of uncles or any person other than the parents.

Official Supreme Court Case Fact-Sheet

• Case Title: REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. v. MALLIKARJUN & ORS.
• Official Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 320; 2023INSC783
• Date of Judgment: September 1, 2023
• Bench Strength: 3 Judges — D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
• Primary Law Interpreted: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16; Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sections 3(1)(j), 6(3), 8 and 10
• Final Verdict: Children of void or voidable marriages are entitled to their deceased parents' property, including the parent's Mitakshara coparcenary share ascertained by notional partition, but not to the property of any other person.

The Revanasiddappa–Mallikarjun Dispute Behind the Gulbarga Ancestral Property Fight

This case reached the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 2011, coming from the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, in R.S.A. No. 550 of 2006. The record is less one family saga than a bundled test case: several similar fights had been waiting on what Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 really permits.

The opposing side's first shield was the older Supreme Court line in Jinia Keotin, followed in Neelamma and Bharatha Matha. That line said children of void or voidable marriages were protected by Section 16 but could not inherit ancestral or coparcenary property. Their second shield was Section 16(3) itself: Parliament, they said, deliberately confined the child's rights to the property of the parents and barred claims against anyone else. A third argument invoked Article 14, saying children of void or voidable marriages form a reasonable class distinct from children born in valid marriages.

The two-judge Bench in the 2011 referring judgment doubted that narrow reading. It noticed that Section 16(3) does not use the words "ancestral" or "self-acquired"; it only restricts the child to the parents' property. After the 1976 amendment, Parliament also removed the old stigma that children of such marriages were illegitimate ipso jure. The matter was referred to a larger Bench to settle the contradiction.

Why Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Seemed to Bar Coparcenary Rights

The legal deadlock turned on one phrase: "any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents." Jinia Keotin read that phrase to mean that a child of a void marriage might get only the parent's self-acquired property, not the parent's interest in a joint family estate. Later cases hardened that reading into a rule that legitimised children were excluded from coparcenary or ancestral property.

The counter-reading was that Section 16(3) nowhere qualifies "property" as self-acquired. Once Parliament declares the child legitimate, discrimination against that child in the parents' own property becomes hard to defend. The 1976 amendment also made legitimacy automatic for children of void marriages, whether or not a decree of nullity was granted and whether the child was born before or after the amendment. That removed the old need to prove that the parents had approached a court.

There was also a hidden collision with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 3(1)(j) defines "related" as related by legitimate kinship, with a proviso saying illegitimate children are deemed related to their mother and to one another. The Bombay High Court in Shantaram Tukaram Patil read Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act into that definition. The Supreme Court agreed with that approach for children covered by Section 16.

What the Chandrachud–Pardiwala–Misra Bench Held Under Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act

The Bench held that Section 16 legitimacy and Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act must be harmonised. A child covered by Section 16(1) or 16(2) is not an "illegitimate child" for succession purposes. Such a child also does not become a Mitakshara coparcener by birth in the larger joint family. The right is confined to the property of the parents, but that confined property can include a coparcener parent's deemed share.

"The individual upon whom legitimacy has been conferred by Section 16(1) or Section 16(2) of the HMA 1955 would be entitled to a share in the property that would have been allotted to their parent assuming a notional partition immediately before the death of the parent."

The Court closed two loopholes at once. First, it rejected the old view that Section 16(3) restricts the child to self-acquired property alone. Second, it prevented an over-correction: the child cannot claim as a member of the larger coparcenary or against relatives other than the parents. The notional partition fixes the deceased parent's share first; the Section 16 child then shares in that parent's share as an heir.

Where You Stand Under the Revanasiddappa Rule: Five Property Scenarios

Real-world scenario	Outcome	Reason under this precedent
Child of a void marriage under Section 11, born before or after 1976, with no decree of nullity	Yes	Section 16(1) confers legitimacy automatically; the child inherits the parents' property, not anyone else's.
Child begotten or conceived before a decree annulling a voidable marriage under Section 12	Yes	Section 16(2) deems the child legitimate; the child can inherit from the parents.
Child of a void second marriage claiming a share in an uncle's or grandfather's undivided coparcenary property	No	Section 16(3) bars rights in the property of any person other than the parents; the child is not a coparcener by birth in the larger family.
Child of a void marriage claiming against a deceased father's Mitakshara coparcenary interest	Yes	The father's interest is first fixed by notional partition under Section 6(3); the child shares in that deemed share as an heir.
Child of a void marriage trying to force partition while the father is alive	No	The child is legitimate for inheritance from the parents, but is not a coparcener by birth and cannot demand partition in the joint family.

This also answers the anxious "second wife children property rights in ancestral" search. If the second marriage was void because a spouse was living, the children of that second marriage are legitimate under Section 16. They inherit from their own parent's deemed share; they do not inherit the first wife's children's shares or the larger coparcenary directly.

Documents and Practical Steps to Apply the Revanasiddappa Judgment

• Gather the marriage record, the birth certificate, and any decree of nullity or court order establishing that the marriage was void under Section 11 or voidable under Section 12. For a void marriage, Section 16(1) can apply even without a decree.
• Collect the deceased parent's death certificate, legal heir certificate, identity proofs, and property papers, including sale deeds, gift deeds, partition deeds and encumbrance certificates, so the notional share can be identified.
• Approach the civil court having jurisdiction over the property with a suit for declaration of title and partition or for accounts, depending on the facts. The judgment also directed the Supreme Court's Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to the Registrars (Judicial) of all High Courts.
• The biggest mistake is to plead as a coparcener in the larger Mitakshara coparcenary or to claim against uncles, grandparents or other relatives. The claim must be tied to the deceased parent's property, including the parent's share fixed through the notional partition.

Common Questions on Children of Void Marriages and Ancestral Property Rights

Does an illegitimate child have a right in ancestral property?

If the child is born of a void marriage under Section 11 or a voidable marriage annulled under Section 12, Section 16 makes the child legitimate, and Revanasiddappa allows a share in the parents' property through the parent's notional coparcenary share. A child who is illegitimate in the ordinary sense and not within Section 16 is not entitled to ancestral property as a coparcener.

Does an illegitimate child have a right in the father's property?

It depends on whether Section 16 applies. A child legitimised by Section 16 can inherit from the father, including the father's deemed share in Mitakshara coparcenary property. A child outside Section 16 is treated under Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act as related to the mother, not the father.

What are the property rights of an illegitimate child under Hindu law?

Hindu law now distinguishes between a child of a void or voidable marriage and a child outside any marriage. The first is legitimate under Section 16 and can inherit from the parents only. The second remains illegitimate and, under the proviso to Section 3(1)(j), is deemed related to the mother and siblings, not to the father.

Can children of a second wife claim ancestral property?

Children of a void second marriage can claim only against their own parent's property, including the parent's notional coparcenary share after death. They cannot claim the larger ancestral estate directly or the shares of children from the first marriage.

Can an illegitimate child claim inheritance in India?

A child within Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act can claim inheritance from the parents. The Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa confirmed that this includes property ascertained as the parent's share by notional partition under Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, but excludes the property of other relatives.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun?

The Court held that children of void or voidable marriages are legitimate under Section 16 and inherit from their deceased parents, including a Mitakshara coparcener parent's deemed notional partition share. It also held that Section 16(3) prevents them from claiming the property of any person other than the parents.