Questions surrounding legitimacy, paternity, and inheritance frequently arise at the intersection of family law, property law, and evidence law. A recurring issue in Indian courts is whether a child born soon after marriage, sometimes within just a few months, can claim equal rights in the property of the father. Such disputes often involve a clash between social perceptions, biological assumptions, and legal presumptions.
Indian law has consistently leaned in favour of protecting the dignity, status, and proprietary rights of children, rather than allowing technical or moral arguments to defeat substantive justice. This principle was emphatically reaffirmed by the Kerala High Court in Sujatha Krishnan & Ors. v. Radha Mohandas & Ors. (2025), where the Court held that a child born within four months of marriage is entitled to an equal share in the father’s property.
Legal Framework Governing Legitimacy and Inheritance
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a Hindu male dies intestate, his property devolves upon his Class I heirs, which include the widow, sons, and daughters. All Class I heirs inherit simultaneously and in equal proportion. Once a child is recognised as legitimate, there is no legal basis to deny her an equal share in the father’s property.
Therefore, the central question in cases of this nature is not about succession itself, but about whether the child can be treated as the legitimate child of the deceased.
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) embodies one of the strongest presumptions known to law. It provides that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage shall be conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of that marriage, unless it is proved that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at the time when the child could have been begotten.
Two features of this provision are crucial:
- The presumption is conclusive, not merely rebuttable.
- The burden of proving non-access lies heavily on the person who challenges legitimacy.
- Indian courts have repeatedly held that mere suspicion, denial, or biological conjecture is insufficient to displace this statutory presumption.
Birth Soon After Marriage and the Presumption of Legitimacy
A common argument raised in inheritance disputes is that if a child is born very soon after marriage, conception must have occurred prior to marriage, and therefore, legitimacy is doubtful. Indian courts have consistently rejected this reasoning.
Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001)
In Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (AIR 2001 SC 2226), the Supreme Court held that Section 112 is wide enough to cover even a child born immediately after marriage. The Court observed that the law deliberately prioritises social legitimacy and family stability over biological exactitude.
The Kerala High Court relied on this principle to clarify that the timing of birth, by itself, does not dilute the presumption under Section 112.
Facts and Issues in the Kerala High Court Case
In Sujatha Krishnan & Ors. v. Radha Mohandas & Ors., the deceased father died intestate, leaving behind his widow, children, and mother. One daughter was born within four months of the marriage between the deceased and his wife.
The trial court excluded this daughter from inheritance, holding that her paternity had not been established. The appellate court was therefore required to decide:
- Whether the child born within four months of marriage could be treated as the legitimate daughter of the deceased.
- Whether she was entitled to an equal share in his property.
Paternity Established by Evidentiary Presumptions and Conduct
Section 32(5), Indian Evidence Act
Section 32(5) of IEA (Section 26 of BSA) makes relevant the statements of a deceased person relating to the existence of a relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, provided the statement was made before the dispute arose.
In the Kerala case, oral evidence was led to show that the deceased father had acknowledged the child as his own even before marriage and consistently thereafter. The Court held that such statements, spoken to by a witness who directly heard them, were admissible and substantive evidence.
The High Court relied on Kolangarath Padmanabhan v. Kambarath Omana (2008 (1) KLT 223), which laid down the conditions for invoking Section 32(5), namely that the statement must relate to a family relationship, be made by a person having special knowledge, and be made before the dispute.
Section 50, Indian Evidence Act (Section 44 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023): Conduct Expressing Opinion
Section 50 allows courts to infer relationships from the conduct of persons having special knowledge of that relationship. The Kerala High Court placed considerable emphasis on the conduct of the deceased father, who had treated the child as his daughter and reflected that relationship in official records.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra (AIR 1959 SC 914), which explained that opinion as to the relationship may be proved through conduct, and such conduct may be spoken to by persons who personally witnessed it.
Failure to Prove Non-Access
To rebut the presumption under Section 112, the defendants were required to prove non-access between the spouses at the relevant time. Kerala High Court found that this burden was not discharged.
The evidence led by the defendants consisted of bare assertions that there was no premarital relationship. The Court held that such bald denials were wholly insufficient to establish non-access, especially in the face of positive evidence of acknowledgement and conduct by the deceased father.
Judgment
The court held:
“Above all, the law leans strongly in favour of the legitimacy of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Even when the birth occurred within four months of the marriage, Section 112 of the Evidence Act raises a conclusive presumption as to the legitimacy of the child, unless it is proved that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten.”
This observation encapsulates the Court’s approach of placing statutory protection and child welfare above speculative challenges.
Equal Property Rights of the Child
Once the Court concluded that the child was the legitimate daughter of the deceased, the legal consequence followed automatically. As a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, she was entitled to an equal share in the property along with the widow and other children.
The High Court accordingly modified the preliminary decree and directed partition of the property into equal shares among all Class I heirs, including the daughter born within four months of marriage.
Broader Constitutional and Social Significance
The judgment reflects a consistent constitutional ethos. Courts have repeatedly held that children cannot be punished for circumstances of birth. Denial of inheritance based on suspicion or social stigma would violate principles of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
By reinforcing the strength of Section 112, the Kerala High Court ensured that the inheritance law does not become a vehicle for moral policing or social exclusion.
Conclusion
The answer to the question posed by this article is clear. A child born within four months of marriage can indeed claim equal property rights in the father’s estate. Indian law, through Section 112 of the Evidence Act (Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and the Hindu Succession Act, places a strong and deliberate presumption in favour of legitimacy and equal inheritance.
The 2025 decision of the Kerala High Court reaffirms that legitimacy is a matter of law, not conjecture, and that children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage are entitled to full legal protection. Attempts to disinherit such children based on the timing of birth or unproven allegations are legally unsustainable.
In essence, the ruling underscores a fundamental principle of Indian jurisprudence that property must follow lawful succession, and the law must protect children from exclusion rooted in suspicion rather than proof.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams