CUTTACK, APRIL 6, 2025 – In a landmark decision, the Orissa High Court held that children born from void or voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a deceased parent’s ancestral property share, provided the parent was a Mitakshara coparcener. This right is, however, limited to the portion that would have been allocated to the parent upon a notional partition before death.
A Division Bench comprising 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 further clarified:
“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.”
BACKGROUND
The case arose after the Respondent approached the Family Court seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and entitled to his ancestral and self-acquired property. She claimed a marriage in 1966, along with two sons born from the union. She alleged the Appellant was merely a nurse working with the deceased.
In 2021, the Family Court ruled in her favour. However, the Appellant challenged the ruling on the grounds that she had not been given a fair chance to present her case due to the death of her lawyer and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The High Court initially remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, issuing an interim arrangement dividing the usufructs of the disputed property—60% to the Respondent and 40% to the Appellant.
After a rehearing, the Family Court reaffirmed its decision in favour of the Respondent, prompting another appeal to the High Court.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
The Appellant contested that:
- The Family Court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that a declaration of marital status should have been brought before a Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
- The suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed more than three years after the deceased’s passing.
- Her children, born from her relationship with the deceased, were legitimate under Section 16 of the HMA and entitled to a share in both his ancestral and self-acquired property.
The Respondent argued that:
- The Family Court had proper jurisdiction under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
- The claim regarding marital status involved a continuing cause of action, rendering the Limitation Act inapplicable.
- Her status as the lawful wife remained unaffected by the legitimacy of the Appellant’s children.
COURT’S FINDINGS: ON JURISDICTION AND LIMITATION
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s jurisdiction, stating: “Section 7(1)(b) was broad enough to cover the relief sought by the Respondent.”
REGARDING LIMITATION, THE BENCH CLARIFIED:
“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.”
ON INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN FROM VOID/VOIDABLE MARRIAGES
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors. (2023), the Court ruled:
“Section 16(3) of the HMA limits such children’s rights to the parent’s share in joint family property and self-acquired property. 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 Court, thus, amended the Family Court’s order and declared:
“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.”
FINAL OUTCOME
The High Court dismissed the appeal in part but modified the Family Court’s decision, explicitly holding that the Appellant’s children:
- Can inherit the deceased’s self-acquired property;
- Are entitled to their father’s ancestral share, but only to the extent of his notional share as a Mitakshara coparcener under Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
CASE TITLE & REPRESENTATION
- CASE TITLE: SMT. SANDHYA RANI SAHOO @ MOHANTY V. SMT. ANASUYA MOHANTY
- CASE NUMBER: MATA NO. 04 OF 2024
- APPELLANT’S COUNSEL: SENIOR ADVOCATE B. BAUG
- RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL: SENIOR ADVOCATE BIBEKANANDA BHUYAN; ADVOCATE S.S. BHUYAN
