Rights of child vs. encouraging illegitimacy - Page 2

Thats what I am wondering. I think bhairavn has already started to take the steps of transferring the property or the share of Jagat atleast in Anandi's name

@ Shuchi

sumali has mentioned that the case was few years back - the recent law has been passed only this year !

I think it's completely wrong if the child is punished for the deed of his./her parents

So what if a woman has got involved with a married man knowingly? Did the child tell his/ her mother to do so? If on this ground, anyone is punished it's like getting punished for someone's else crime!


By this arguement, then every criminal's parents should also toil in jail because:

a) they did not give proper values to their child for which he/she turned criminal

b) parents of goons and mawalis often know that what's their child upto and it might be the case that they never supported him/ her - however, hardly anyone can go to police station and put his son in the jail.. so does it mean that they should be punished too? If they are punished for not taking the help of law against the child, then everyone, who knew about a criminal/goon/mawali in a area should be punished as they did not help the police in catching of the goon!

hmm true doyel..

no Shuchi- I don't think so !

Infidelity has happened even before passing of this law!

As sumali mentioned, the man basically married twice without getting legally divorced from first wife - so did the man get punished by his first wife or family? We don't know but most probably not.

However, when it comes to property, one of the son's basically became the actual victim.

This law - at least in urban educated society, won't bring much difference.

You see, infidelity in our urban areas mean man/woman gets involved with another person outside marriage to have some "extra fun" - it's a matter of extra, hence, these people keep their lives secret to save their marriage... If someone really wants to spend life with the new-found partner, then almost in 95% of the case, a educated person get himself/herself legally separated from the previous partner and then get legally married.

Hello all, excellent discussions going on here. As far as I know the law, there are three things regarding inheritance of an illegal child:

1. The law makes provision for the illegal child as long as the father has a share in it. As Bips rightly pointed out, if the father himself is disinherited then there is no question of the child's inheritance.

2. The law does not provide for ALL illegitimate children. There is a catch there---"a provision of the amended Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act "bestows the same legitimacy rights on the offspring of a voidable marriage provided the conception had NOT occurred after the voidable marriage was declared to be a nullity." The clause thus clearly states that in order to be an illegitimate child with rights, the child has to be conceived before his parents' marriage was declared null. As Sumali rightly pointed out, the basic requirement of such rights is that the parents did NOT know their marriage was illegal. If the parents knowingly enter a relationship of illegality and bears a child out of that, then there are no provisions for the child.

3.The clause of "the conception of the child before the marriage is declared null" is existent precisely to protect those women, and their children, who are tricked into a fake marriage without knowledge about an existing marriage. This clause is in sync with the clause of section 495 in IPC that allows the second wife tricked in marriage to file a case against such a man: "Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section (bigamy) having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The laws in both these cases protects the second wife and her children, assuming that the husband has concealed the fact of the first marriage and she was tricked into the whole relationship without any knowledge of the previous legal wife.

The law does not make any provision for the children of the prostitutes or voluntary mistresses and concubines like Gauri who willingly co-habit with a married man, knowing all the truths, and then bears children in such a relationship. I hope the CVs show the actual legal picture clearly, instead of misleading viewers that it is perfectly okay to have children in an illegal marriage where both the partners are aware of the truth of the relationship.

Thank you Antara I was actually WAITING for your post. I do hope the CVs take note of this point. Excellent insight.

P.S To my previous post: "In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral."

The amendment clearly states that the illegitimate child will have rights only on the property of the parents. That means if the parents have a share in ancestral property, then they will have a share too. If the parents don't have a share in ancestral property then no share for the child either. So if Jagya is disinherited and cannot claim ancestral property, then the child will not have any claim either.

This apart, it is really upsetting to see all the debates of illegitimacy boiling down to the question of property inheritance. Does having a share in property remove all stigma of illegitimacy? Does an illegitimate child only hanker for property??

In BV too, as soon as Gauri got to know that the child will get a share of the property, she was fine and happy and eager to go ahead with the pregnancy. Is it only property that matters? What about the social stigma of the child? What about the possible hatred the child might also get from the Singh family? What about the social stigma the child might have to face if the truth of his/her parents' marriage come out? Is it really that simple?

Thanks Anthara for clearing the doubts! :)

So if DS or Bhairon does not legally disown J then his child will have right over property - no matter in what circumstances he/she was conceived or whether G knew about J's marriage or not.

I was reading other articles and it stated the same facts that illegitimate children can claim ancestral as per the very recent laws.

Per the amendment -

"In our view, in the case of joint family property, such children will be entitled only to a share in their parents' property but they cannot claim it on their own right. The only limitation even after the amendment seems to be that during the life time of their parents, such children cannot ask for partition (of property) but they can exercise this right only after the death of their parents."


Hmm.. so had Bhairon or DS done anything concrete to remove J from claiming his property?

I know Antara.. But I am still confused about this.

@ Shuchi

As you can see, the law rightly puts the responsibility on the shoulder of the family / first wife of the man to punish him if he has committed bigamy.

If the family / first wife/ first wife's family can accept a man's illegal acts and don't do anything - like sending him to jail or disowning him from property -then why should the child suffer in the whole fiasco?