Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Notwithstanding that a marriage marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 197 The Act came into force on 18 May 1955.
1[16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.--(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.
(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a 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, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
Section 16, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-13.pdf 2011-03-31 labelled (order-12 same date was WRONG DOCUMENT in wave43; order-14 same date is ROP; 2023-09-01 order-35.pdf still reserved-ROP). CA 2844/2011 (SLP(C) 12639/2009). G.S. Singhvi / Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE, New Delhi March 31, 2011. DATE-CHECK false positive on trial/appellate fact dates 2005-07-28 / 2005-11-23; body is the named 31 Mar 2011 HMA 16(3) merits (same Ghisalal/Thwaha/Eera pattern). Isolate: s.16(1)–(2) confer legitimacy; s.16(3) uses unqualified 'property' of the parents (ancestral as well as self-acquired) and bars only claims against persons other than the parents. Differ from Jinia Keotin / Neelamma / Bharatha Matha; referred to a larger Bench. Do not pad HSA. Do not attach 2023 order-35 reserved ROP.
On this section: HMA s.16(1)–(2) confer legitimacy on children of void/voidable marriages; s.16(3) uses unqualified 'property' of the parents (ancestral as well as self-acquired) and bars only claims against persons other than the parents (Revanasiddappa 2011).
-
Satyendra Kumar vs Raj Nath Dubey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the cause of action and subject matter in a subsequent suit are entirely different (involving different properties) though between the same parties, res judicata in its strict sense is not attracted, and all issues including pure questions of law remain open for adjudication by the competent court. Pure questions of law relating to statutory interpretation and substantive rights cannot be finally determined through res judicata doctrine when applied across different properties and causes of action. A court cannot be precluded by principles of res judicata, estoppel or equity from correctly deciding a pure question of law in a subsequent suit between same parties concerning different property, as the rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land. Factual findings from earlier judgment operate as estoppel against parties but do not bind the court on pure legal principles.
On this section: Respondents relied on this section arguing illegitimate children entitled only to self-acquired property; not ancestral land from consolidation records; Court did not accept this distinction for final decision
-
Uday Gupta vs Aysha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Observations made by a lower court regarding legal principles concerning marriage, when restricted to the specific facts of that case and not presented as laying down universal law, do not require interference by the Supreme Court, particularly where the observations accord with established jurisprudential principles on the presumption of marriage from continuous cohabitation and the legitimacy of children born from such unions.
On this section: The Court cited Section 16 in reference to the legislative intent to bring about social reforms and confer social status of legitimacy on children born out of cohabitation, otherwise treated as illegitimate
-
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'husband' in Section 498-A IPC should be interpreted to include any person who enters into a marital relationship and exercises authority as a husband over a woman, subjecting her to cruelty, regardless of whether the marriage is valid or void. The applicability of Section 498-A depends on whether the woman is subjected to cruelty in a marital relationship, not on the legal validity of the marriage. Purposive interpretation must be applied to effectuate the legislative intent of protecting women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty, as the essential ingredient of Section 498-A is the subjecting of woman to cruelty, not the validity of the marriage itself.
On this section: Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages - cited to show legislature's concern for consequences of invalid marriages
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… ought not to be treated on par with children born from a lawful <sup>1</sup> The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) 2 Section 16(2) of HMA 3 (2003) 1 SCC 730 marriage for the purpose of inheritance of the ancestral property of the parents4 . This Court held that in view of the express mandate of the legislature in Section 16(3), a child born from a void marriage or a voidable marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity has been passed would have no right to inheritance in respect of ancestral or coparcenary property. The decision in Jinia Keotin was followed by two judge benches in Neelamma v Sarojamma <sup>5</sup> and …
-
… the suit despite the absence of specific pleadings of custom in the plaint? > iv) Did the courts go wrong in finding the issue of paternity in favour of the plaintiff by gross misappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record? 7. Heard both sides. 8. It would be apposite to refer to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the HMA) which reads thus - "16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.—(1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether …
-
… One can probe into the latter question only upon establishing the former. The question is so posed since the plaintiff has no case under Section 16 ..15.. of the Hindu Marriage Act, as per the pleadings in the plaint. Therefore, evidence as to the marriage between Kuttikrishnan Nair and Madhavi Amma is what is essentially required to be established in order to ascertain a prima facie case, or for that matter, a strong prima facie …
Questions about Section 16
What have the courts held on Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (31 Mar 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: HMA s.16(1)–(2) confer legitimacy on children of void/voidable marriages; s.16(3) uses unqualified 'property' of the parents (ancestral as well as self-acquired) and bars only claims against persons other than the parents (Revanasiddappa 2011). Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Hindu Marriage Act 16, section 16 Hindu Marriage Act, section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (31 Mar 2011).
What should I read with Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 11 (Void marriages), section 12 (Voidable marriages), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act come into force?
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, cited as Hindu Marriage Act 16, came into force on 18 May 1955, having been enacted on 18 May 1955. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 13. Divorce913 words
- 3. Definitions499 words
- 23. Decree in proceedings465 words
- 12. Voidable marriages361 words
- 2. Application of Act302 words
- 14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage290 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.