In a significant ruling concerning inheritance rights under Hindu law, the Orissa High Court has held that children born from void marriages are entitled to inherit both the ancestral and self-acquired property of their father, provided the share in ancestral property is limited to what the father would have received upon a notional partition. The Court affirmed and modified the Family Court’s judgment that declared Smt. Anusaya Mohanty as the legally wedded wife and legal heir of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty.
Background of the Case
The present appeal, MATA No. 04 of 2024, arose from a judgment passed by the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, in C.P. No. 576 of 2017. In that judgment, the Family Court declared Anusaya Mohanty as the legally wedded wife and lawful heir of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty. The respondent had asserted that she married the deceased on 5 June 1966 under Hindu rites and had two sons from the marriage.
The appellant, Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty, challenged this declaration, contending that she and her children from her relationship with the deceased also had inheritance rights. The appellant claimed that the Family Court erred by not recognizing her children’s rights and by entertaining the suit, which, according to her, should have been filed in a Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellant also raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the suit was filed beyond the permissible time.
Arguments by the Appellant
Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, argued that:
- The Family Court lacked jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to entertain a suit seeking a declaration of marital status.
- The suit was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, having been filed more than three years after the death of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty.
- The Family Court failed to recognize the rights of her children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
He relied on multiple precedents including Samar Kumar Roy v. Jharna Bera (2008) 1 SCC 1 and Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekharappa (1997) 9 SCC 688.
Arguments by the Respondent
Mr. S. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent, defended the Family Court’s findings and argued:
- The suit fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
- The suit was not barred by limitation as the time spent pursuing the matter before the Civil Court and in challenging its jurisdiction should be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
- The legitimacy of the appellant’s children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act did not affect the respondent’s legal status as the lawful wife or her right to inherit.
He relied on judgments including Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 SC 2161, and Hasina Bano v. Mohd. Ehsan, 2024 SCC OnLine AI 5194.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Jurisdiction:
The Division Bench comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice B.P. Routray held that the Family Court had valid jurisdiction under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which covers “a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person.” The Court noted:
“The Family Court had the proper jurisdiction under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act to entertain the Respondent’s prayer for a declaration of her marital status.”
Limitation:
Addressing the issue of limitation, the Court held that the suit was not time-barred. It ruled that the time during which the respondent prosecuted her case in a Civil Court lacking jurisdiction should be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. The Court observed that the nature of the relief sought — a declaration of marital status — involves a continuing cause of action.
Inheritance Rights of Children from Void Marriages:
On the substantive issue regarding the inheritance rights of the appellant’s children, the Court found merit in the appellant’s concern that the Family Court’s order did not clearly acknowledge the children’s entitlement to their father’s property.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, the High Court held:
“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.”
Accordingly, the High Court modified the Family Court’s judgment to include this clarification regarding the children’s rights.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal on merits and upheld the Family Court’s decision with a modification to explicitly recognize the inheritance rights of the appellant’s children. The Court concluded:
“The judgment dated 12.12.2023 by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, is modified to the extent that the Appellant’s children have the right to inherit the self-acquired property of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty, as well as their rightful share in his ancestral property, subject to the portion that would have been allotted to him upon a notional partition before his death, as per section 6(3) of the HSA.”
