Yes only with their parents property and not with any ancestral property. In Jinia Keotin and Others v Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Others, (2003)1 SCC 730 “The Hindu Marriage Act underwent important changes by virtue of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 27.5.1976. Under the ordinary law, a child for being treated as legitimate must be born in lawful wedlock. If the marriage itself is void on account of contravention of the statutory prescriptions, any child born of such marriage would have the effect, per se, or on being so declared or annulled, as the case may be, of bastardizing the children born of the parties to such marriage. Polygamy, which was permissible and widely prevalent among the Hindus in the past and considered to have evil effects on society, came to be put an end to by the mandate of the Parliament in enacting the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The legitimate status of the children which depended very much upon the marriage between their parents being valid or void, thus turned on the act of parents over which the innocent child had no hold or control. But, for no fault of it, the innocent baby had to suffer a permanent set back in life and in the eyes of society by being treated as illegitimate. A laudable and noble act of the legislature indeed in enacting Section 16 to put an end to a great social evil. At the same time, Section 16 of the Act, while engrafting a rule of fiction in ordaining the children, though illegitimate, to be treated as legitimate, notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable chose also to confine its application, so far as succession or inheritance by such children are concerned to the properties of the parents only.”


Hon’ble Justice: Ajit J. Gunjal, J. in a judgement of F. Moily Vs. Lokayuktha, State of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others, Reported in 2010 (5) KarLJ 127 SOURCE: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WEBSITE “Indeed as to the duty cast on the petitioner as well as the Counsel appearing for the parties is concerned, Hon'ble Mr. Justice MN Venkatachalaiah, former Chief Justice of India, has this to say: "The subject of traditions of the Bar, has quite unfortunately come to be associated with certain indelicate assumptions than the best traditions of the Bar are myth and illusions of by gone times and nostalgia of 19th century. I venture more hopefully to think that the great traditions of Bar have sustained the profession of law which every civilised society cherishes as a part of very valuable inheritance. The high traditions are spring of strength and sustenance in its days of trial. The profession of the lawyer is perhaps the single most powerful for the protection of the liberty of man and the decision of civilised living". Advocates are the inheritors of tradition of scholarship, wisdom, dignity, courage and service. The Advocate by his tradition is under several duties. They comprise of duty to the Court, duty to the profession, duty to the opponent, duty to the client, duty to the self and duty to public and State. The duty of an Advocate to the Court is also equally important. This duty encompasses and comprises courtesy and respect to the Court. An Advocate can differentiate without being abject, independent and fearless without being disrespectful, firmness can co-exist with an equal amount of grace and politeness. Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would speak about the General Power of the Bar Council of India to make certain rules. For the present, we are concerned with Section 49(1)(c) of the Act, which would speak about the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the Advocates. Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette is to be found in Chapter 2 of Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules which is framed under Section 49(l)(c) of the Advocates Act read with the proviso would clearly indicate as to the duty of an Advocate towards the Court. We are more concerned with item No. 4 of Section 1 which would read as under. "An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing Counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in the Court". The Apex Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another v Hon''ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and Others, AIR 1955 SC 19; has observed thus: "This misconception has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement, and we think it should be widely made known that Counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court, and that it is no duty of a Counsel to his client to take an interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications".