Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. So on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court held that the marriage did take place between the plaintiff No.3 and Ramaiah but the marriage is not valid as the necessary rituals and ceremonies were not observed nor performed, then plaintiff No.3 lived with Ramaiah, she can be considered to be the exclusively kept concubine of Ramaiah and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the illegitimate children born to the plaintiff No.3 through Ramaiah. The Court considering Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are children of an invalid marriage, should be treated as legitimate children of Ramaiah for all practical purposes. It was also held that the plaintiff No.3 is not entitled to claim a share but she is entitled to maintenance against the share of Ramaiah. It was further held that as the defendants 1 to 3 are the natural sons of Ramaiah and as they are members of Hindu Joint Family, each of them is entitled to a l/4th share and 1/4th share in the family properties which belonged to Ramaiah devolved-upon the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 4 and each of them is thus entitled to a l/24th share. The Court further held that though there is some evidence of tentative arrangement of two acres of land being given to the plaintiffs, it does not estop the plaintiffs from claiming a share in the suit properties. The Court directed partition of the plaint schedule properties into 24 equal shares and for allotment of one such share each to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. It recognised the claim of plaintiff No.3 for maintenance against the share of her husband late Ramaiah.

13. The learned Counsel for the appellants further relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 (2) ALD 42 (SC). The subject matter in this case also arises under Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, concerning the dispute with regard to the payment of family pension and death-cunt-retirement gratuity to two wives of Narain Lal, who died in 1987 while posted as Managing Director, Rural Development Authority of the State of Bihar. The appellant therein-Rameshwari Devi, is the first wife. Narain Lal is stated to have married second time with Yogmaya Devi on April 10, 1963 while the appellant was still alive. From the first marriage he had one son and from the second marriage four sons were born in 1964, 1971, 1972 and 1976. The learned single Judge' in his judgment held that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attain majority. He also held that the second wife Yogamaya Devi was not entitled to anything, and the appeal preferred therefrom by the first wife, Rameshwari Devi was dismissed by the Division Bench. According to her, there was no marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi and the children were, therefore, no legitimate. On appraisal of both the factual as well as legal aspects, the Supreme Court held that it cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of the said Act, children of void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 property of a Hindu dying intestate devolve firstly on heirs in clause I which include widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares and Yogmaya Devi can not be described as widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with the latter being void and the sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate.