 Good evening, and we all know that whenever the latest Supreme Court judgment comes, especially in respect of under the succession rights for any vital aspects, the one name which rings in our mind is that we should request Mr. S. R. Surinath and Rao. And he has always been kind enough. And in fact, we discuss in the office the grasp of Mr. Rao to understand the subject, also a voluminous the judgment will be. He readily and willingly normally accepts and share his knowledge within the first week of that judgment. Taking cue from the latest Supreme Court judgment, on behalf of Beyond Law CLC, we had requested Mr. S. R. Surinath and Rao to share his legal perspectives and what does that judgment of the Supreme Court lay down in succession rights of Hindu children from void and voidable marriage. Being a Sunday, we know that everyone would like to move around. But at the same time, Mr. Rao attracts everyone with his knowledge sharing. Over to you, sir. And we are indebted for accepting our environment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chathrat. Good evening, everybody. We are here today to find out the succession rights of children born out of void or voidable marriages. In order to understand the succession rights of these children, normally called illegitimate children, we should first understand what is a legitimate marriage and what is not a legitimate marriage. In fact, for that purpose, a few sections of the Hindu Marriage Act will have got to be carefully scrutinized along with a few provisions of the Succession Act in order to correctly understand the import of the latest judgment to the Supreme Court. First, we will look into section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage. A marriage may be standardized between two Hindus if the following conditions are satisfied. So, there are five conditions that are required to be satisfied in order to bring about a valid marriage. Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. So, therefore, the spouses should not have another spouse living at the time of the marriage. That is the first thing. The second thing is, at the time of the marriage, neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent to it. In consequence of unsoundness of mind or though capable of giving a valid consent has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. This is number two. Number three, the bride room has completed the age of 21 years, the bride the age of 18 years at the time of the marriage. Then the third condition is, fourth condition is, the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the customer usage governing each of them permit a marriage between the two. So, this is what is prohibited relationship is defined in section three and we can go to section three to find out what is prohibited relationship and what is not prohibited relationship. Then the fifth condition is that the parties are not subindos of each other unless the customer usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two. So, therefore, they should not be subindos of each other. When the two parties become subindos, again we will have to go to the definition section. The definition section says that these persons will be subindos and they cannot marry each other. So, in fact, under the old Hindu law, there were subindas, samanavakas and bandhus. Even in the subindas, there was what is called as gotha the subindas and binna gotha the subindas also. In fact, there is no necessity to go into the world law at all because the what is subindore relationship is clearly defined in the definition section of the act itself. So, therefore, these are the five conditions required for a valid marriage. Then we should go to section seven. In section seven, what are the ceremonies that have to be performed in a valid marriage or contained in section seven? I read section seven. A Hindu marriage may be solumenized. In fact, the word solumenized is a very important phrase that we have got to keep in mind while referring to the other sections in the act. A Hindu marriage may be solumenized in accordance with the customary rights and ceremonies of either party there too. So, it depends upon the custom of the parties. That is number one. Number two, where such rights and ceremonies include the saptapadi that is taking up the seven steps by the bride room and the bride jointly before the sacred five. The marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. So, therefore, the saptapadi is the only thing that is referred to here. In fact, normally in South India, the essential ceremony is one of tying the thali among various non-Brahmin communities. So, therefore, in number of decisions because the Karnataka High Court has said that if tying of the thali is proved, that is sufficient proof of the ceremonies of the marriage having been solumenized. Now, we go to section 11. Section 11 speaks of what marriages are void. What are void marriages? So, if by a reference to section five, if conditions one, that is neither party has spouse living or that the parties are within the degrees of private relationship or the parties are subindas of each other. Therefore, if clauses one, five, four and five of section five are violated, those marriages are called void marriages. A void marriage is non-yestein law. Therefore, this is what they say. Any marriage solumenized after the commencement of this act shall be null and void and may on a petition presented by either party there too, again it is the other party, be declared by a decree of nullity. So, therefore, the decree is given a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions contained in the clauses one, four, five of subsection five. So, these marriages are categorized as void marriages. Then, we should go to section 12. Section 12 deals with void marriages. This is what section 12 says. Any marriage solumenized whether before or after commencement of this act shall be void, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity. So, therefore, the word use is nullity on any of the following grounds. Importancy, fraud, concealment of information and so many other things are mentioned in section 12. One thing we have to keep in mind that with the parties to the marriage or not age 21 years or 18 years and if there is a child marriage in accordance with the terms of the Hindu marriage act, the marriage is not void. The marriage is only voidable and unless set aside it would by a decree of the court by a decree of nullity or annullment the marriage continues to be valid. Now, in Madras they have introduced a new section which is section 7A. This is applicable to only to the state of Madras. This is what is included by section 7A by amending the Hindu Marriage Act. So, this is what this section says. This section shall apply to any marriage between two Hindus whether Suyama Marriathai Marriage or by any other name, Salmonized in the presence of relatives and friends or other persons by each party to the marriage declaring in any language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife as the case may be her husband or by each party to the marriage garlanding the other or putting a ring upon the finger of the other or by tying the thali. So, therefore the essential ceremonies are given a go by as far as Madras is concerned by introduction of section 7A. All that is required is the husband and wife must make a declaration that they are entering into a relationship in marriage only one declaration then they can garland each other they can exchange a ring they can tie a thali. So, this is all what is required therefore the ceremonies other ceremonies of the marriage are not required in the in Madras state and it is the only the Madras state that has been introduced section 7A. In fact, the section 7A was subject to a decision of the Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in SLP criminal 6534 bar 2023. This decision is rendered on 28th August 23. In this decision what happened was a marriage was Salmonized in the presence of some advocates and other social workers. A certificate of marriage was also given then the wife probably was taken away by their parents. Therefore, a repetition was filed before the High Court, a habeas corpus repetition was filed by the High Court. The High Court said that mere declaration is not sufficient it should be made publicly if a public declaration is not made in the presence of a few people mere declaration in the in the advocates office in the presence of few persons and a certificate is given by the advocate would not be sufficient compliance under section 7A of the of the Hindu marriage act as in force in Madras state. So therefore, the High Court refused to grant any relief to the parties. The matter went up in appeal before the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court said that it is not necessary that that there should be a marriage with with a few persons in public and a declaration should be made before them. In fact, this is what the court has said in paragraph 8 of the judgment. The the view expressed by the Madras High Court in so and so in the opinion of this court is erroneous. It is premised on the assumption that every marriage requires a public solidification or declaration. In the opinion of this court, in the opinion of this court, such a view is simplistic because often due to parental pressure among kinship groups or caste or community institutions, couples intending to enter into a matrimony may not be able to for the reason of such opposition, fold or give such a public declaration. Doing so would impale their lives or could in the very least likely to result in danger to their bodily integrity or at worst a forceful or coerced separation of one from the other. It is not hard to visualize other pressures being brought to bear upon the two individuals who are otherwise adults and have exercised their free will to superimpose the condition of public declaration which is absent in section 7a in the opinion of this court is not only narrowing the wide import of the statute but also would be violative of the rights under section under article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is what the court has said. In fact there are reports in fact because this was a case where a marriage had taken place before in an advocate's office, there were paper reports to say that marriages could be conducted in an advocate's office also and the advocates also can give certificate of marriage as far as madras is concerned. In fact the paper reports are totally wrong. In fact this is what the courts have said as far as the role of the advocates are concerned. In paragraph 9 of the judgment this is what the supreme court has said. The court also notices the observations made in the impugned order with respect to role of advocates. The concern voiced by the high court are not entirely unfounded. Advocates or lawyers have many capacities one being officers of the court. Therefore this is what is important. Therefore they should not by acting as counsel or advocates or their capacity as advocates undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. They can well result that can well result in advocates chambers or offices turning out to be matrimony establishments. A consequence never intended or perhaps never contemplated by law. However in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out. So therefore this is what they said. So therefore the paper reports in regard to this decision are totally incorrect and it is not as if marriages can be performed in the chambers of advocates. If they are related to the parties they could be witnesses to the marriage that's all and nothing more than that. This is what the supreme court has said. So that is with regard to the ceremonies of the marriage as far as Madras is concerned. Then the next most important decision is their succession rights for purpose of succession rights we should go to section 16 of the Hindu marriage act. In fact I would make a reference to section 16 of the Hindu marriage act. In fact this section 16 of the Hindu marriage act as it originally stood there were a provision which said that where a marriage is declared void under section 11 by a court by a competent court or where a marriage is annulled in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12 then the children born out of such marriage would be on par with legitimate children and they would succeed to the property of their parents only. This was what was contained in section 16 as it stood earlier. In the year 1976 this 16 was amended and now the section 16 says that legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages notwithstanding that the marriage is null and void under section 11 in fact reference to a decree of the court is taken away now and section 11 any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid shall be legit shall be legitimate whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the marriage last amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under the act and whether or not the marriage is held to be otherwise void otherwise than an petition under this act where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12 any child begotten or consumed before the decree is made who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the marriage it had been dissolved instead of being annulled shall be deemed to be the legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity then nothing contained in section 1 or section 2 shall be construed as conferring upon the child of the marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12 any rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents what is they would they would not be entitled to any property on succession other than their parents other than their parents that is the emphasis in any case where but for passing of the act such child would have been incapable of possessing or requiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents so therefore a marriage may be void or voidable if children are born out of such marriages they are presumed to be legitimate though in the absence of this particular section they would have been illegitimate so therefore and they are entitled to only the property of their parents and not anybody else this is the emphasis contained in this section in fact the old section which contained a reference to a decree of nullity or a decree of annullment of the marriage by a court is deleted in the amended portion in the amended section only because the the section as it stood earlier was held to be unconstitutional as violating of article 14 of the constitution of India so therefore this it is in fact I would demonstrate as to what the section actually means is that if you if that there are let us suppose there are four brothers that is C1 C2 C3 and C4 amongst them the C2 the second brother is dead let us suppose he has two wives one wife and he has taken a second wife during the lifetime of the first wife so therefore naturally the second marriage is a void marriage so therefore he has a son and a daughter by the first marriage which is valid marriage a son and a daughter by the second marriage which is an invalid marriage and those children are considered to be legitimate by virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Hindu marriage act now what what happens is let us suppose C2 dies on the day when C2 died he had a one-four share in the in this properties because he had three other brothers so when C2 dies the the two children by the first wife they would be that is S1 and D1 they would be co-stars along with the father at the time of his death because of Vinita Sharma's case so therefore this one-fourth share of the father would be divided between the father the son and the daughter by the first wife who are legitimate because the first marriage is a valid marriage so therefore this one-fourth share would be shared by all the three persons and therefore each of them get a one-twelfth share each and the the remaining one-twelfth share of the father that would be divided between the wife who is alive that is one wife who is alive and also the the one wife who is that is the first wife only because the second wife will not get a right if there are two wives both the wives take the share together then the the wife and the four children they share the one-twelfth share of the father and therefore all these five persons they get a one-sixtieth share therefore the legitimate child from the first marriage gets a one-twelfth one-twelfth share that is by right by birth plus one-sixteenth share on succession to their father so that and the illegitimate children by the first wife they get one-sixth share only because they don't take the share of share in the joint family properties as co-personals they don't become co-personals the illegitimate children they don't become co-personals they only take the property on succession to the father so therefore their rights in the co-personality property gets limited to a one-sixtieth share only whereas the legitimate children get a one-twelfth share plus one-sixtieth share this is all this is all what the supreme court has said in a decision rendered recently now we can go to this decision of the supreme court i make a reference to a few paragraphs in the decision of the supreme court we may make a reference to this civil appeal we may make a note of this decision because it is not yet reported civil appeal number 2844 bar 2011 reivanna siddha pa and another versus malik arjun and others this decision is rendered on 1st of september 2023 in fact the the earlier decisions were see they are entitled to a share in the property of their parents so therefore there were decisions by various courts in this country which said that this property of their parents would mean property which belonged to the parents as their self-acquired property particularly the father and it would not include the share of the father in the in the co-personary properties and it would embrace only the properties which belong to the father exclusively therefore some doubts were expressed in in this regard by a bench of two judges the matter was referred to a three-member bench and the leading decision in this case was rendered by justice by vichandra chud now i would like to make a reference to few paragraphs in this judgment in fact the question involved in this judgment is clearly spelled out in a few paragraphs of the judgment which i would read for your consideration then what what section 16 actual three of the hindu marriage act actually means is set out in paragraph 16 of the judgment subsection three of section 16 commences with a non-obstinate provision contained in subsection one and subsection two parliament while enacting subsection three intends to ensure that the legislative conferment of legitimacy will not confer upon such a child born from a void or voidable marriage as the case may be any rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents where but for passing of the legislation the child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of their not being the legitimate legitimate child of the parents there are two crucial expressions in subsection three the first is any right in or to the property of any person other than the parents the second is where but for the passing of this act such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of he is not being the legitimate child of the parents subsection three in other words circumscribes the consequence of the legitimate legislative protection of of the legitimacy of the child in relation to the conferment of rights in the property in fact subsequently after a few lines but the provision equally indicates that the conferment of legitimacy will not operate to confer rights in or to the property of persons who are not the parents of the child so therefore they don't get anything from any person other than their parents by succession then what was the issue involved in this case is put in paragraph 17 of the judgment the reference essentially rises the following issue following issue whether a child who is conferred with legitimacy the child would have been otherwise illegitimate the legislature compares legitimacy to such children a child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy under section 16 1 or 16 2 is by reason of section 16 3 entitled to ancestral or co-personary property of the parents or is the child merely entitled to the self or bar separate property of the parents the question that arises before us first whether the legislative intent is to confer legitimacy on a child covered by section 16 in a manner that makes them co-personers and thus gentile to initiate or get a share in the partition actual or notion second at what point does a specific property transition into becoming the property of the parent for for it for it is solely within such property that children end out with legitimacy would be entitled in order in accordance with section 16 3 so therefore this was the question before the court and various at the court after having then then we make go to paragraph 28 of the judgment paragraph 28 they make a reference to this Guru Padappa Kandapa versus Hirabai Kandapa Magadam that is the famous case where the concept of notional partition has been very clearly expounded by the senior chandra chud the father of the present Chief Justice of India in fact there's a often quoted decision the decision is quoted with approval and after making a reference to this decision at paragraph 28 we may go to paragraph 33 page 33 and paragraph 33 of the judgment so then for they tried to connect 16 3 with section 6 to find out whether they would be entitled to any rights the illegitimate children would be entitled to any rights in the copartnery properties by birth before the amendment section 6 provided that on the death of a male Hindu his interest in mitakshara copartnery property would devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the copartnery are not in accordance with the mode of succession provided in the act section 63 of the amended provision now stipulates that a Hindu dying after the commencement of the amending act his interest in the property of joint Hindu family governed by mitakshara law devolves by testamentary or interstate succession as the case may be under the act and not by survivorship so therefore under the amended section the concept of notion the concept of survivorship is taken away what it says is the whatever share the father is entitled to at the time of the birth is worked out at a notional partition and whatever the father gets that fraction of a share would go by testamentary or interstate succession so therefore the whatever the father gets at a notional partition just prior to his death would be his partake the character of self acquired property and therefore the illegitimate children or the children from wide or voidable marriages they don't become copartners therefore they don't get any right by birth in the copartnery properties all that they are entitled to is the share which the father gets at a notional partition would become his exclusive property therefore they get a right by succession in the property to which the father becomes entitled to at this notional partition this difference will have got to be clearly kept in mind therefore the legitimate children get a right by birth in the copartnery properties and therefore they take a share as copartners and also a share on succession to the father whereas the illegitimate child does not get the share as a right they only get a share by virtue of the death of the father in the share to which he was entitled toward the time of his death so therefore see the concept of obstructed heritage and unobstructed heritage will have got to be kept in mind the legitimate children would be entitled to these properties both by obstructed heritage and also by unobstructed heritage whereas the children by the wide wide or voidable marriages they get a property by unobstructed heritage only and not unobstructed heritage suppose the father wants to deprive the children illegitimate children of any share in the copartnery properties or his self acquired properties he can certainly do it by executing a will as far as legitimate children are concerned he can deprive them of a share in his share only but he cannot deprive them of a share in the share which they get by birth in those in the in those properties so this is what the supreme court has said at paragraph 36 of the judgment I read from paragraph 36 the explanation to subsection 3 mandates that the interest of a Hindu metakshara copartner would be asserted on the basis of a partition that takes place of the property immediately before the is death the the his interest is deemed to be the share in the property which would have been allotted in a partition at a point of time immediately before the death irrespective or not irrespective of whether or not he was entitled to seek a partition in fact the illegitimate children have no right to file a suit and ask for a partition during the lifetime of the father whereas the legitimate children they have a right by birth in the ancestral copartnery properties and they can certainly file a suit for partition now we we may go to page 35 see what is the property of the parents is discussed at paragraph 42 of the judgment and this is what the supreme court has said when a Hindu dies after the commencement of the amending act to 2005 his interest in the property the joint family governed by metakshara law has to devolve by testamentary or interstate succession and not by survivorship as stipulated in subsection 3 of section 6 the interest of a Hindu metakshara copartner for purpose of subsection 3 has to be ascertained on the basis that a more notional partition has taken place immediately before the death the distribution of the property among class 1 years is governed by rules specified in section 10 then we may go to the end of this paragraph hence hence where the deceased has died interstate the revolution of his of this property must be among the children legitimate as well as those conferred with legitimacy by the legislature under section 16 16 2 of the Hindu marriage act doing so would not offend or breach the restrictions contained in subsection 3 of section 16 section 6 then the the court gives an illustration similar to the one which I have given but I have given an extended illustration and the this illustration is referred to in paragraph 43 of the judgment because I have given that illustration already I do not make a reference to it now I make a reference to paragraph 44 of the judgment we must clarify that it is true that the Hindu law recognizes a branch of the family as a subordinate corporate entity within the fold of a larger co-partner consisting comprising of many branches however even such a branch can acquire fold and dispose of family property subject to certain limitations the nature of property held by such a branch until partitioned among the members of the branch does not cease to be joined family of all the co-partners with the bank now since the child conferred with legitimacy under section 16 is not a co-partner the branch comprises the father and his children borne out of valid marriage as such the property once partitioned from the larger co-partnery under the hands of the father for his own branch is not the father separate property the one fourth share of the father in the illustration given would not be separate property it continues to be the co-partnery property in which the children from the valid marriage have joined ownership only from valid marriage they have joined ownership thus in view of the restriction in section 16 3 in a in this property not being the exclusive property of the father a child covered under section 16 16 2 is not he is not entitled is not entitled the above legal position is supported by a conjoint reading of section 6 of the Hindu succession act and section 16 of the Hindu marriage act then then the illustrator the law is further explained in paragraph 45 the individual upon whom legitimacy has been conferred under section 16 1 or 16 2 of the Hindu Hindu marriage act would be entitled to the property that would have been allotted to their parent assuming a notional partition immediately before the death of the parent such a construction would be in accordance with section 6 3 and would harmonize with the provisions of section 16 3 of the Hindu marriage act now the now I think we can go to para para 50 at page 46 of the judgment legitimacy and co-partnery see what is most important is in this para it is very clearly stated that the children born out of a marriage which is either void or voidable they don't become co-partners that is stated in one sentence in this such an individual such an individual does not if so fact though become a co-partner in the middle me Hindu Mithakshara joint family section 16 however continues to recognize the existence of Mithakshara Hindu joint family therefore this has got to be very clearly kept in mind they don't become co-partners they big they are entitled to the right in the co-partnery property which is allotted to the father at the time of death in the notional partition they don't get any right by birth they only get a share in the share of the father like like a widow of the deceased and nothing more than that and the father can deprive the illegitimate children of any rights in the in the in the in these properties then I may make a reference to the end of the end at page 48 of the judgment section 16 3 represents a balancing act by the legislature when it stipulates that a child who is legitimate in terms of subsection 1 or section 2 of section 16 would have rights in or to the property only of the parents are not to any other person so therefore see they would not succeed to the brothers of the father the collaterals they would not succeed to even to the property of their step brother or sister in certain situations and all that I would further extend the the illustration which I have already given so therefore this second brother see dies after the death of sea as I have already said the two children by the first wife for legitimate they get a one twelfth share by birth and one 40th share that is the in the share of the father by succession and not one forty one one sixtieth share by succession to the father so suppose the daughter dies the legitimate daughter dies then and she dies is sure less if the legitimate daughter dies is sure less then what happens is under section 15 to the property reverts to the years of the father so when the property reverts to the years of the father the property is succeeded by the other brother only because the property does not belong to the parents these the the son by the first wife alone succeeds to the property of the sisters and the stepson or step sister they do not get any right in these properties suppose the uncle dies without issues and under class two years would be brother's children let us suppose so if the brother's children are class two years only the sons the legitimate sons of the brother by the first wife would be entitled to the illegitimate children would not be entitled to any of these properties and the word used in section 16 is that a marriage which is solemnized so therefore the second marriage must be accompanied by ceremonies as stated in section 7 if there are no ceremonies if a man just lives with another wife let us suppose that he has a live in relationship with a lady he has a first wife he has a live in relationship with the second wife second not the second wife with another lady then she does not get the status of a second wife in law because the marriage is not solemnized therefore the children of the even if both of them are Hindus if they live if there is a living relationship between them the children of this living relationship of these two Hindus they do not become legitimate in accordance with section 16 three because section 16 refers to marriages solemnized and not otherwise there is all in fact the in fact many times it happens that the father has a wife and he has a concubine the children of the concubine they don't become legitimate children they continue to be illegitimate children only because the marriage with the concubine is not solemnized so therefore the the provision of section 16 three applies only when the marriage is solemnized and not otherwise so therefore the the law will have got to be clearly kept in mind if the father in the to put it in a nutshell if the father owns uh uh co-personary property and also self-acquired property as far as self-acquired properties are concerned there is no difficulty both legitimate and illegitimate children they get equal shares the problem arises only in regard to the co-personary or joint family properties in the co-personary or joint family properties the legitimate son takes in two capacities one as a as a son by a right by birth and as a son on succession to the father in both capacities he gets the property whereas an illegitimate son does not get any right by birth as a co-partner he only gets a right on succession to the father in the share that the father gets at an optional partition this has got to be very clearly kept in mind and the law will have got to be understood as far as the property of the mother is concerned there is no difficulty at all see succession to the property of a female is governed by section 15 if he dies under section 15 one the property goes to the son daughter and the husband and and and the husband so therefore the world son or daughter it does not include a step son or a step daughter therefore if the first wife dies the property goes only to the children of the first wife if the second wife dies the property goes only to the children of the second wife so therefore the step children do not inherit the property of the step mother and this fact also will have got to be clearly kept in mind so therefore I have just tried to explain the this the two decisions of the supreme court one under section 7a of the Tamil Nadu amendment to section 7 of the Hindu marriage act and the lay and the latest decision of supreme court in revanasi the past case therefore I only hope that I have made myself clear and if you have any questions you can ask me and I will try to reply the questions that may be asked always clear it is only that you have made the people clear sir one of the question is is it prospective or retrospective according to you see see this the law if the death of the father takes place after the advent of the Hindu marriage act then for all such cases section 16 3 applies and therefore the the law laid down by supreme court also applies so therefore that death much take place after 19 after the Hindu marriage act then only these provisions would apply and not otherwise then this is when a marriage is why does it make any difference if it is it was solemnized or not solemnized see by reading section in fact at the cost of repetition I would make a reference to section 16 again wherein the word used in section 16 is this not withstanding that the marriage is null and void under section 11 then if you so therefore the marriage must be void under section 11 are voidable under section 12 in both section 11 and section 12 the references to the marriage any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this act that those are the opening words of section 11 and voidable marriage is any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of the act so therefore for application of section 11 or 12 there must be ceremonies for the marriage must be there the marriage must be solemnized then only either it would be a void or voidable marriage any other if there are no ceremonies at all there is no marriage at all it it is as if they are not husband and wife the relationship is not sanctioned by law they by virtue of article 21 them they might not have committed any offense but their marriage is not recognized and they would not be entitled to succeed either under six or under section 15 of the Hindu succession act says what would be the right of the children who are born without marriage this you have already clarified that they are there they don't get anything on succession in fact if the father wants or if the mother wants the anyway mother mother's property will go there is no problem as far as the father's property is concerned if he wants he can give it by will or by a gift but by succession the children will not get anything and what about in certain cases especially in the service side they say that the divorce was by a customary divorce whether the children of the second wife but there's no proof that there's a marriage living relationship whether that they would get the pension or other benefits see we are dealing with question of succession see and the word used is property of the parents if it becomes if the pensionary benefits become the property of the father then they would be entitled to a share if it does not become the property of the father they would not be entitled to a share according to me the pensionary benefits of the father would certainly be the property of the father and both children legitimate and delegitimate would be entitled to a equal share according to me in fact if the marriage is not solemnized as required under section seven then they hint the the these probably the provisions of section sixteen three has no application at all and so thank you for sharing your knowledge though i would not be able to understand but since a lot of he was awesome karnataka he said that if Mr. Rao could just explain in 10 minutes in canada it would be totally agreed to me you want me to speak in canada some a lot of people have posted in the chat box so you can give somebody in 10 minutes yes i will do it in canada no problem void or voidable marriage only put the mucka they are given the status of legitimate children under section sixteen three they they are conferred with legitimacy by virtue of section sixteen three so other than that they too are also like legitimate children but adre section sixteen three of hindu marriage act prakara other than that supreme court denials are in the over again over co-parsons are good enough mitakshara joint family over again tende bagayen birth or a bagadal birth again the ashtel matra bagabharat tende svayadita ashteli yenutundra iila legitimate children illegitimate children elder gu samavaga birth tende legitimate children adre he ancestral co-parsons property celli over again genmasidha akku birth tende mele undu partition suit haki tende indha ashteli baga togo budu tende batikidaga adre he void or voidable marriages are put to the mucka they canun prakara legitimate children adre indha over co-parsons are good enough tende batikidaga yawasthel no enu share kala kaga good enough tende ge svayadita ashteli tende ge un saayak munche undu partition agide antha bavisi antha partition alli tende baga kien ashti parato adu tende svayadita ashti antha pargnis lagate adre indha iila legitimate children yenidara aurige i tende bagadal van share parathe tende genmasidha akku yenirodhila legitimate children genmasidha akku yenirodhila tende indha baga tende ashti mele aur bagadal baga anubhara tende adre illegitimate children ke tende ashti mele tende ashti el maga batra baga parathe naan adike van dilistration putte onu oba naalak jana ganbaklidara naak jana co-parsons so el ru gu naalak nevan baga iruthi modul ne tandaige iibh hindu's marriage act bhand mele yarad madhve madhukunditana un madhul ne batkir vaga le yarad ne madhukunditana aasanivesh dal yenagat tende yarad ne madhve white marriage aunige modul ne madhve indha ob maga magalu iruthare yarad ne madhve indha ob maga magalu iruthare modul ne madhve indha bandhir gu apatana maga maga magalige vinita sharmas kes prakara a maga maga ibru kuda co-parsons actare adre tende naalak nevan baga deli ii maga mat magalige ibru gu kuda tende saman vada hak parathe tende yarad nevan baga ii modul ne enti maga maga gu kuda hanar nevan baga hanar nevan baga parathe adre, ii tende bandhir gu hanar nevan baga yenide hanar nevan baga yenide adru thirugi aun henti naalak jana makalige baga agathe adru 1 over 60 yad share agathe adre na modul ne enti makalige naa 1 ne hannar baga plus 1 ne arvath baga arvath arvan baga parathe adre na enti makalige arvath arvath arvan baga parathe arvath agathe agathe janmasidh akhan inda agathe parodh illa adre inda this is the entirely what the supreme court has said a tande ke notional partitionalli yen baga parathe adral mata illa chitmate childrenu parathe tande swayarjita ashti al parathe thayya ashti vishithal enthundre illa umu modul ne enti sathodh re modul ne enti makalige matra parathe arre na enti sathodh re arre na enti makalige matra parathe modul ne enti sathodh re arre na enti makalige paralige arre na enti sathodh re modul ne enti makalige paralige ishte kanu nina mukkivada amchagadu adre na madhive agathe tande ceremonies of marriage section 7 prakara umu madhive makunditre unne madhive erne madhive agathe sathodh tande madhive makudadhe hinde helde bakan kubayin na on hitu kundu aulinda oni makal hootitre those children will be illegitimate they will not become legitimate children erdane sermanis makundu erdane madhive makundu pakshadalli matra arre they are conferred with legitimacy under section 16 and not otherwise so this concept is correct it will lead us to clients it will lead us to a proper opinion sir i have yes sir this is i don't know one has posted can you please continue the session to next sunday on another topic sir your explanation on topic i will ask nitha bhali that you should share the topic which we can request sir to share sir sir is always willing i i'll consider and give you a next date somewhere by the end of the month one more topic i'll take there is no problem yes sir one question last question we are taking this is on the youtube a daughter fight a petition against her living father and two living brothers for one fourth property father got 32 shares 32 acres as his share after his father died will the daughter also get the share see if the property is copersonal property and if the suit is filed subsequent to the 2005 amendment the daughter would get a share as a copersonal if the father if there are father and two sons one third share each he gets and in the in the father share also it is again shared and that that goes to his wife and also two children so therefore the daughter also gets in two capacities if there is no question of illegitimacy is involved the daughter and the son both are on par with each other and the daughter also gets an equal share with the son in such a situation yeah thank you sir for sharing your knowledge and like any other audience we would also wait for the topic from you thank you everyone for joining us and thank you to sir for your indomitable spirit to keep on sharing the knowledge with us thank you