Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by three minor children aged 12, 9 and 5 years (‘petitioners’), respectively, through their mother-natural guardian seeking direction to the respondents to enter their names in the Panchayat record i.e. Birth Register and Pariwar Register, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., stated that the petitioners were living beings and the fact that they were there, needed to be acknowledged in law. Hence, their names were required to be entered in the record of Panchayat concerned. The Court stated that entering the names of the petitioners in the Panchayat Record i.e. would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’). The objection of the respondents that since the marriage between the parents of the petitioners could not be registered, so the petitioners’ name could not be entered in the Panchayat Record was clearly misconceived and violated the import of Section 16(1) of the HMA.
Background
The marriage between ‘X’ and ‘Y’, i.e. petitioner’s parents was solemnized on 12-10-2011 and since then, they have been living as husband and wife in the house owned by father of ‘X’. Petitioner’s father, i.e. ‘X’ was earlier married to ‘Z’, who was not keeping good health and suffered from several ailments. Thereafter, with consent of first wife, ‘X’ solemnized second marriage with ‘Z’.
The petitioner’s grievance was that in their repeated endeavours for incorporating their names in Panchayat record i.e. Birth Register and Pariwar Register had not proved fruitful. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646, wherein while interpreting & elaborating upon interplay of Sections 16 (1) and 16(3) of the HMA, it was held that child born from a marriage which was null and void under Section 11 of the HMA, was legitimate. The legitimacy of such a child, was matter of public policy so as to protect the child born from null and void marriage suffering the consequences of illegitimacy. Further, the Court noted that in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1, it was reiterated that children born from void or voidable marriages were conferred legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA.
The Court observed that in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, District Kangra on 22-8-2023, it was not disputed that the petitioners were the children born to ‘X’ and ‘Y’. In this case, the second marriage was solemnized during subsistence of his first marriage, when her first wife was alive. Further, the Court noted that the first wife of ‘X’ clearly stated that she had no objection for recording the names of the petitioners in the Panchayat Record.
The Court stated that the petitioners were living beings and the fact that they were there, needed to be acknowledged in law. Hence, their names were required to be entered in the record of Panchayat concerned. The Court stated that entering the names of the petitioners in the Panchayat Record i.e. would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of the HMA. The objection of the respondents that since the marriage between the parents of the petitioners could not be registered, so the petitioners’ name could not be entered in the Panchayat Record was clearly misconceived and violated the import of Section 16(1) of the HMA.
Thus, the Court directed the respondents to enter the petitioners’ name in the Panchayat record i.e. Birth Register and Pariwar Register within five weeks.
[Navya v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 5658, decided on 17-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Divya Raj Singh Advocate.
For the Respondents: Dalip K. Sharma and Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General.
