Supreme Court of India

M. GOVINDARAJUversusK. MUNISAMI GOUNDER (D) AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 880
Decided: 13 August 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: M M PUNCHHISUJATA V MANOHAR

Holding

The appellant is a legitimate son of Munisami Gounder and is entitled to his share in the joint Hindu family property.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard the appeal of M. Govindaraju, who sought a one‑seventh share in his father's joint Hindu family property. Govindaraju was born to Pappammal, who had earlier been married to Koala Gounder but left his house in 1942‑43 and thereafter lived with Munisami Gounder, the father of the appellant. The High Court had held that no valid marriage existed between Pappammal and Munisami, deeming Govindaraju illegitimate and denying his right to partition. The Court examined Hindu law on abandonment, factual divorce, and the caste factor, concluding that the abandonment amounted to a complete divorce, permitting a subsequent valid marriage. It further held that the child was legitimate, as paternity was not denied and the family treated him as a son, making him entitled to a share in the joint family property. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the trial court’s decision granting legitimacy, and allowed the appeal without ordering costs.

Issues considered

Whether the abandonment of a first husband by a non‑dwija woman amounts to a factual divorce under Hindu law, thereby permitting a subsequent valid marriage.
Whether a child born of such a subsequent union is legitimate and entitled to a share in the joint Hindu family property.
Interpretation of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (sections 3(a), 13, 16) in the context of legitimacy and partition rights.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 16, s. 3(a)

Subjects

legitimacyHindu marriagejoint Hindu familypartitionabandonmentcaste factorHindu Marriage Act

Judgment

                             M. GOVINDARAJU                                         A
                                        v.
                K. MUNISAMI GOUNDER (D) AND ORS.

                              AUGUST 13, 1996

          [M.M. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA v: MANOHAR, JJ.]                                 B

        Hi11du Maniage Act, 1955: Secn'o11s 3(a), 13 a11d 16.

        Hi11du Law-'Go1111ders'-Ma11iage-Woma11 walki11g out of her
husba11d's house a11d started livi11g with a11other perso11, seco11d hus- C
ba11~So11 bom out of seco11d maniage-Righ.t of such a so11 to claim
partitio11 of joillt hi11du family property-Evide11ce suggesti11g that after separa-
tio11 11either wife 11or first husba11d taki11g i11terest i11 each other-Held divorce
was complete-Neither patemity 11or matemity of so11 bom out of seco11d
maniage disputed-Held son bom out of second maniage was a legitimate
offsp1i11g-Held High Court e1md in i/legitimising the son.                            D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 209 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.95 of the Madras High
Court in A. No. 186 of 1984.                                                        E

        S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.

        V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                            F
       The appellant, M. Govindaraju, was born to Pappammal from the
loins of Munisami Gounder. The trial court as well as the High Court have
neither disputed the paternity nor the maternity of the appellant. He has
been denied his share in the joint Hindu family property owned by his G
father on the sole ground that when begotten no valid marriage subsisted
between his parents. The trial courtwas in his favour though in giving him
legitimacy, but the High Court branded the appellant as an illegitimate
child of his parents and, hence, not entitled to claim partition of the joint
Hindu family property. The said property consists of about 21 acres of
agricultural land in which the appellant claims l/7th share.                  H
                                    629
    630                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          Evidence was led by the parties on the issue whether M unisami
    Gounder had validly married Pappammal. It was not denied by either side
    that beforehand Pappammal stood married to one Koala Gounder and after
    living with him for a couple of years, had walked out of his house to live
    with Munisami Gounder way,back in the year 1942/1943. The evidence of
    P.W. 2 led by the plaintiff as to the performance of the spoken of marriage
B   by rites and rituals, or that efforts were made to have the marriage of
    Pappammal \vith Koala Gounder cancelled, was rejected by the High Court.
    Be that as it may, the fact found remains that Pappammal walked out of her
    husband's house and started living with Munisami Gounder in the year
    1942/1943 and it is as a result of that union that the appellant was born.

c          The High Court in illegitimising the appellant, seems to have over-
    looked the caste factor which would have a great bearing in order to
    establish the relationship between the parties. They were 'Gounders', neces-
    sarily falling in the classification other them Dwijas. Hindu law is clear on
    the subject that if a non-dwija woman is turned out of the house by her
D   husband, or she willfully abandons him and is not pursued to be brought
    back as wife, a Jivorce in fact takes place, sometimes regulated by custom,
    and ther> each spouse is entitled to re-arrange his/her life in marriage with
    other marrying partners. Walking out of Pappammal from the house of her
    first husband I<nola Gounder was irretrievable and irreversible, for it is in
    evidence that neither of them look interest in each other thereafter. The'
E   divorce was thus complete. Paternity of the appellant having not been
    denied, he was treated as a son of his father. We would, therefore, think
    that the trial court was right in giving him the status as a son of his father.
    In doing so, the trial court rightly look in aid the fact that in recognition of
    that status, the appellant was given his first cousm in marriage i.e.
    Munisami's sister's daughter. That fact was corroborative of a valid acknow-
F   ledgment of paternity and legitimacy. If the people, especially the relatives,
     had treated and acknowledged the appellant as the legitimate son of his
    father by foq,~ng a bond of matrimony of the sort aforementioned, it is a
    strong piece of evidence to hold that the appellant was a legitimate offspring
    of his father. The High Court thus clearly fell in error in illegitimising him.
     We reverse that view.
G
         For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the im-
    pugned order of the High Court and restore that of the trial court, but
    without any order as to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                        Appeal all<)wed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "legitimacy"Sign in to search