Surat: A 30-year-old man lost his right over property of his father’s property as he failed to prove that marriage had solemnized between his parents in court.
Manoj Patel, a resident of Surat city, lost the special civil suit seeking property rights of his father Chimanbhai Patel as the court ruled that child born outside of wedlock was not entitled to property rights under the Hindu Marriage (HM) Act. The court also termed the relationship between Chimanbhai and Manoj’s mother Sumanben as a ‘live-in relation agreement’.
Manoj’s mother Sumanben was the second wife of Chimanbhai. She had married Chimanbhai even when his first wife Ratanben was alive.
Court further observed that to establish the rights under section 16 (3) of Hindu Marriage Act and under the Hindu Succession Act, it is important to establish that marriage was solemnized between the parties.
“In the present case, it appears to this court that the Manoj Patel failed to show that marriage was solemnized between Chimanbhai and Sumanben and therefore, he cannot claim any such (property) rights being a child born not out of wedlock and thus, no rights can be given to him,” the court stated in the order dismissing the civil suit.
Manoj had filed the suit in October 2017 with the contention that his father Chimanbhai had married his mother during the subsistence of his first marriage with the knowledge and consent of his first wife Ratanben.
He had submitted that he and three other children were born of the wedlock between Chimanbhai and Sumanben and he was entitled to share in Chimanbhai’s property. The property in contention is a 62.21 sq m house in Surat city
Sumanben died in February 1996 while Chimanbhai passed away in February 2002. Manoj had filed the civil suit demanding his share in properties after he came to know that Chimanbhai’s children from his first wife were trying to dispose of properties.
Though all the witnesses had stated that Chimanbhai had married Sumanben, but they could not recall any ceremony where the duo had tied the knot.
Court also could not examine the priest as he had died. “Documents show that it was a contract between the parties (Chimanbhai and Sumanben) and no marriage had taken place between them. The recitals of the document show that it was a live-in relation agreement which is not enforceable for the rights by the plaintiff,” the court stated in its order.