Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. GURNAM KAUR AND ANR. versus PURAN SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
8 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 322 · 1996 INSC 210
Also cited as
  • (1996) 2 SCC 567 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

In this appeal, the only question is whether the appellant is a legitimate child of her father; Ram Singh. Though all the courts concurrently have found that she is the daughter of Ram Singh and her mother Gurnam Kaur, the finding recorded is that she is illegitimate child since the marriage of Gurnam Kaur with her previous husband was not legally dissolved. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1976 reads as under :

p. 322, margin F

"Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate; whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws' (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68of1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be valid otherwise than on

pp. 322–323, margin G

a petition under the Act."

p. 323, margin A

Preceding the amendment, declaration of nullity by a decree of a Court is a pre-condition. Amendment 68 of 1976 has done away with it and declared that notwithstanding the marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid shall be legitimate whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Amendment 68 of 1976 and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under the Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise then on a petition under the Act. Thus, it would be clear that declaration of voidity of a marriage on a petition of either party or, in other words, declaration of the marriage as nullity under a decree which were pre-conditions under Section 12 of the Act, is done away with. Consequentially, as if the marriage had been valid, the child shall be legitimate whether such child was born before or after the commencement of Act 68 of 1976. By operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with Schedule 1, appellant being the daughter of Ram Singh, is entitled to the property of her father. The decree is accordingly granted. Application for appointing a guardian of the minor is allowed.

p. 323, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 323, margin E