The Supreme Court held that a child born out of a live-in relationship is not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property (in the undivided joint Hindu family) and can only claim a share in the parents’ self-acquired property.

The Bench set aside a Madras High Court judgment, which held that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property as there was a presumption of marriage in view of the long relationship.

Reiterating an earlier ruling, a Vacation Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said, “In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages), the illegitimate children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.”

The Apex Court also stated that while the marriage exists, a spouse cannot claim the live-in-relationship with some other person and seek inheritance for the children from the property of that other person.  The relationship with some other person, while the husband is living is not “live-in-relationship” but “adultery”. The illegitimate children have got inheritance rights from the property of the husband and not that from the other person. It is further clarified that “live in relationship” is permissible in unmarried heterosexuals (in case, one of the said persons is married, the man may be guilty of adultery and it would amount to an offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code).

Geeta Luthra, Senior Counsel, speaking to Bar & Bench said that the judgment is interpreting the fiction of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in relation to the declaration of children born out of a void/voidable marriage and a child being deemed legitimate for the purposes of inheritance due to the fiction created. She further said that for the first time, recognition was given under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to entitle women with some sort of protection with regard to live in relationships. Secondly, in the case of  Actress Khushboo, the 3 Judge Bench, headed by Juctice Balakrishnan shed light on pre-marital sex and live-in relationship for the first time in India. The relevance of pre-marital sex and Khushboo’s comments, connect her with criminal cases filed against her. The present judgment does not deal with the concept of live-in relationship per se. It says that a child can only make a claim on the person's self acquired property, in case the child is illegitimate. It can also be interpreted in a way in which a child could lay a claim on the share of a parent's ancestral property as they can ask for that parents share in such property, as Section 16 permits a share in the parents property. Hence it could be argued that the person is not only entitled to self acquired property but also a share in the ancestral property.

Suruchi Suri Grewal, a lawyer, notes that this is yet another instance where the judiciary has accepted the existence of live-in relationships in contemporary society and clarified the rights of those involved and persons likely to be affected by such a relationship. This ruling of the highest court of the land is welcome as there will be no room for doubt vis-a’-vis inheritance rights of children born out of live-in relationships.

Sanjay Agnihotri, an Advocate with Suri & Company says that the judgment, though in accordance with law as of today, does not differentiate between children borne out of live-in relationship, where both the partners/parents are single. The judgment talks about a scenario where one of the partners in a live-in relationship is committing adultery. One can understand the ratio of the judgment in such a case.  While the judgment does lend some sort of credence to “live-in” relationships, yet it deprives the children borne out of such a relationship, to what should be their rightful inheritance, which would have come to them but for the formal ceremony of marriage.

The Apellants, Bharatha Matha and another were represented by Advocate K. Ram Kumar and the Respondents, R. Vijaya Renganathan and others were represented by Sai Krishna Rajagopal along with Advocates Hari Shankar K., Vikas Singh Jangra and Bharat S. Kumar presenting the case.

A copy of the judgment is available here.