The rights of the illegitimate son have been modified by legislation. The changes thus introduced have worked to his disadvantage in some respects and to his advantage in certain other respects.
(i) During the putative father’s lifetime the minor illegitimate son was entitled under the Hindu Law to be maintained by the putative father. Under the legislation of 1956 this position remains the same. But the rights of the illegitimate son have been strengthened by recognising the right to maintenance even as against the mother.
(ii) After the death of the putative father, previously, an illegitimate son by a permanently and exclusively kept concubine (otherwise known as dasi putra) was entitled, among the Sudras, to a share in the separate property of the father on his death. This right has now been withdrawn and he is now entitled only to maintenance.
Image Source: duichargeatlanta.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this respect no distinction is now made between a Dasi Putra of a Sudra and a dasi putra among the regenerate classes. In both cases now the illegitimate son, has only a right to maintenance and nothing more even after the putative father’s death.
(iii) Previously, when the putative father died as member of a Mitakshara joint family, the coparcenary property was liable for maintenance of the illegitimate son so long as he lived. This was because the right was regarded as a substitute for a share in the property from which he was excluded because of his illegitimacy. Under the present law the illegitimate son cannot claim maintenance even against such property after attaining majority.
(iv) Under the old law an illegitimate son by a non-Hindu concubine was not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Law. The Act of 1956 does not impose this restriction but since it also requires by s. 24 that the claimant should be a Hindu, it appears that in this respect there is no change in the law.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Merubhai Mandanbhai v. Raniben, AIR 2000 Guj. 277, it has been held that a claimant is not entitled to maintenance simultaneously under all the Acts, which provide for maintenance except where the maintenance order is under Cr.PC which has a ceiling for such grant of maintenance.
In Anandi D. Jadhav v. Nirmala Ramachandra Kore, AIR 2000 SC 1386 : (2000) 3 SCC 703, referring to s. 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 the court held that though a old mother is entitled to be inaintained by her son that does not mean that she is entitled to live along with her son’s family.