In a landmark judgment reinforcing the legal presumption of legitimacy, the Kerala High Court has ruled that a child born within just four months of a couple's marriage is entitled to an equal share in the deceased father's property. The bench, comprising Justices Sathish Ninan and P Krishna Kumar, overturned a trial court order that had denied the child her inheritance rights.
The Core Legal Dispute and Court's Ruling
The case originated from a partition suit filed by the widow and children of a man who died intestate in December 2012. The family sought division of his properties. While the trial court agreed to partition, it excluded one daughter from a share, solely because she was born within four months of her parents' marriage. The court had interpreted this short gestation period as grounds to question her legitimacy as a Class I heir under Hindu succession laws.
The widow challenged this order in the High Court. The bench, after hearing arguments from both sides, delivered a decisive verdict. "Once it is found that the child is the legitimate daughter of the late man, she is entitled to an equal share in the properties along with the other Class I heirs," the court observed. It ordered the trial court to modify its decree, partitioning the properties into five equal shares for the two children, the widow, and the mother of the deceased.
Section 112 of Evidence Act: A Conclusive Presumption
The High Court's judgment hinges on the robust legal protection offered by Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section states that any child born during the continuance of a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution, is conclusively presumed to be legitimate, provided the spouses had "access" to each other at the relevant time.
The court emphatically rejected the trial court's narrow interpretation. "The trial court thus committed a manifest error in discarding the plaintiffs' claim by holding that Section 112... could not be invoked merely because the child was conceived before the marriage," the bench noted. It clarified that for Section 112 to apply, it is not necessary that conjugal access be confined to the post-wedding period. Access before marriage is equally relevant.
The judgment underscores that the law leans heavily in favour of legitimacy. The presumption under Section 112 can only be rebutted by proving non-access between the couple at the time of conception—a high legal bar. The court found no such evidence in this case.
Arguments Presented and Final Outcome
Advocates R Sreehari, Sachin Vyas, and P B Krishnana, representing the petitioners, argued that the couple was in a relationship prior to their arranged marriage and the child was conceived during that period. The respondents' lawyers, Ashok Kumar, Bindu Sreedhar, and Asif N, contended that since it was an arranged marriage, there was no opportunity for access before the wedding, and not even an engagement had occurred at the probable time of conception.
The High Court, however, sided with the presumption of law. By invoking Section 112, it established the daughter's legitimacy and her unequivocal right to inheritance. This ruling not only brings justice to the individual family but also sets a significant precedent, protecting the rights of children against doubts cast solely by the timing of their birth in relation to their parents' marriage.
The decision reinforces that in matters of inheritance, the legal framework in India is designed to protect the child's interests, ensuring they are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
