Illegitimate sons

“Illegitimate sons”

Viswanatha Mudali and another v. Doraiswami Mudali and another on 12 February, 1925 in  (1925) 49 MLJ 684

JUDGMENT by Devadoss, J. 

A good deal of the argument in this case was with reference to the rights and disabilities of the illegitimate sons of Sudras.

It is well settled that the illegitimate son of a man belonging to the twice-born class cannot inherit to his putative father; he has only a right to maintenance, but in the case of Sudras, the illegitimate son inherits to his father, his share being half of that of the legitimate son, and he takes the whole in certain circumstances.

It is a misnomer to call the son of a dancing woman whose paternity is unknown an illegitimate son. The illegitimate son is one born out of wedlock, i.e., no marriage was solemnized between the father and the mother.

In the case of sons of prostitutes or dancing women the paternity is unknown and it is only an euphemism to call them illegitimate sons.

In Roman Law they are called Nullius-Filius. Dancing women have their peculiar customs. Their status is recognised in Hindu society. Their customs have received the sanction of judicial decisions and the adoption of girls by them is recognised by law, and the daughters of dancing women inherit in preference to their sons.