Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Whether spouse of marriage declared as void can claim permanent alimony u/s.25 and whether maintenance pendente lite can be granted u/s.24 in a s.11 HMA petition – Reference was made to three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in view of conflicting decisions and answered accordingly: Held: 1. s.5 r/w s.11 HMA, provides that certain categories of marriages are void – s.11 provides for grant of declaration of a marriage as null and void – s.25 confers power on matrimonial court to grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto” – “Decree” in s.25 is to be understood with reference to s.23 HMA, which deals with decrees granting relief u/ss.9 to 13 HMA – Such decrees bring about change in status of parties to marriage and are narrower than the general definition of “decree” u/s.2(2) CPC. [Paras 11-14, 17]
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Reliance placed on Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan to hold that when marital status is affected or disrupted, under HMA, court has power to grant permanent alimony or maintenance – Further, s.25(1) makes no distinction between decree of divorce and decree declaring marriage as nullity, thus decree of nullity u/s.11 cannot be excluded from purview of s.25(1) HMA – Interpretation in Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga holding that spouse whose marriage has been declared void u/s.11 HMA entitled to permanent alimony or maintenance from other spouse by invoking s.25 HMA affirmed – Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma held to be inapplicable as Andhra Pradesh High Court therein was dealing with maintenance u/s.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Further, law laid down by Himachal Pradesh High Court in Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh and full bench of Bombay High Court in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu v. Leelabai held to be incorrect. [Paras 17-20, 23-34]
3. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.25 – Difference between remedy u/s.25 HMA and s.125 CRPC/s.144 BNSS – s.25 HMA and s.125 CRPC operate in different fields – s.25 HMA is gender neutral whereas s.125 CrPC applies to wife and children – s.125 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature and a quick remedy to seek maintenance – s.25 confers rights on the spouses of the marriage declared as void u/s.11 HMA to claim maintenance from other spouse – Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. distinguished as they related to applications u/s.125 CrPC. [Paras 21-22, 25]
4. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – On maintenance pendente lite – s.24 empowers matrimonial court to grant interim maintenance in pending proceedings u/ss.9 to 13 HMA, provided: (i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending (ii) Court must conclude that either the wife or husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding – Even if court prima facie finds the marriage void or voidable, it may grant maintenance pendente lite if above conditions are met. [Paras 25-26]
5. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Grant of relief u/ss.25 & 24 discretionary – Whether relief of permanent alimony can be granted depends on facts of each case and conduct of parties – Equitable considerations apply when Court considers prayer for maintenance u/s.25 as the section provides that while considering prayer for granting relief, conduct of parties must be considered – While deciding prayer for interim relief u/s.24, Court will always consider conduct of the party seeking the relief. [Para 26] Hindu Law – Marriage – Referring to wife of a marriage declared as void as “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress” – Propriety of:
Held: Describing woman from a void marriage as “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” violates her fundamental right of leading dignified life u/a.21 – Language used by full bench of Bombay High Court in Leelabai inappropriate, misogynistic and against ideals of Constitution – Pertinently High Court has not used similar adjectives in case of husbands of void marriages. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.