It states that if a child is born out of marriage of the parties, who have agreed for divorce, and the respondent has also agreed to receive a lump-sum amount for maintenance of self and child as well then, despite of the said maintenance, the child is completely entitled to get the share in appellant’s property or appellant’s fathers property as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 without any prejudice and compromise.
In the instant case, the terms and conditions mutually arrived at between the parties before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act would disclose that the respondent had agreed to have the custody of the child born to them and also agreed to receive a sum of `5 lacs in lump-sum, not only for her maintenance, but also for the maintenance of the child. The parties had not thought of making a provision in the property of the appellant or the properties of the father of the appellant. The minor child is entitled to get a share in the property of the appellant or in the properties of the appellant’s father only within the ambit and scope of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Her entitlement to a share in their properties as per the above Act cannot be curtailed by the appellant and the respondent even by way of compromise. It is found that the trial Court, without any issue having arisen as regards the lien of the minor over the property of the appellant or his father, chose to grant lien over the property of the appellant and his father.