Supreme Court Examines Maintenance Rights in Void Marriages: “Relief Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is Always Discretionary and Case-Specific”

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court of India held that a spouse of a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim maintenance and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act. However, the relief is discretionary and depends on the conduct of the parties and the facts of each case. It also ruled that interim maintenance pendente lite can be awarded under Section 24 of the Act, even in cases of void or voidable marriages, subject to specific conditions being satisfied.

Facts:

The issue arose due to conflicting judicial views regarding whether Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, apply to marriages that are void ab initio. Under Section 11 of the Act, a marriage is considered void if it contravenes the conditions specified in Section 5, which include:

1. Either party already having a spouse living at the time of the marriage (bigamy).
2. Marriage between parties within prohibited degrees of relationship, unless permitted by custom or usage.
3. Marriage between sapindas (close blood relations), unless permitted by custom or usage.

The specific legal question was whether such void marriages allow for claims of maintenance and alimony under Sections 24 and 25, particularly when the marriage is deemed non-existent in the eyes of the law.

Issues:

1. Whether a spouse in a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to claim permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25.
2. Whether maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 can be granted during proceedings for annulment of a void or voidable marriage.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Void marriages lack legal recognition: A marriage declared void is non-existent and does not create any legal rights or obligations between the parties, including the right to claim maintenance.
• Interpretation of Section 25: The petitioner argued that Section 25’s phrase “any decree” does not include a decree of nullity under Section 11.
• Moral concerns: Allowing maintenance in cases of void marriages could encourage immoral behavior, such as bigamous relationships or relationships within prohibited degrees.
• Discretion of the court: The petitioner emphasized that granting alimony under Section 25 is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Broad interpretation of Section 25: The respondent argued that the phrase “any decree” in Section 25 encompasses all decrees passed under the Act, including decrees declaring marriages as void.
• Economic dependence: Denying maintenance would leave economically dependent spouses destitute, which would be contrary to the protective intent of the Act.
• Equality and dignity: Relying on Article 15(3) of the Constitution, the respondent emphasized the special provisions meant to safeguard the rights of women.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the provisions of Sections 24 and 25:

1. Section 24 (Maintenance Pendente Lite):
   • This section allows for interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings under the Act.
   • The key conditions are that the party seeking maintenance must have insufficient means for support, and the relief is discretionary.
2. Section 25 (Permanent Alimony):
   • Section 25 enables the court to grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto.”
   • The phrase “any decree” was interpreted broadly to include decrees declaring marriages void under Section 11, apart from decrees of restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), judicial separation (Section 10), annulment (Section 12), and divorce (Section 13).
   • The court clarified that the relief under Section 25 is discretionary, and courts must consider the conduct of the parties while deciding.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993):
   The Supreme Court held that “any decree” in Section 25 includes decrees declaring marriages void, thereby permitting maintenance and alimony in such cases.
2. Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Daga (2005):
   Affirmed that Section 25 is applicable to all types of decrees under the Act, including nullity decrees under Section 11. It also emphasized that denying maintenance in cases of void marriages would lead to destitution of economically dependent spouses.
3. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988):
   Distinguished as dealing with Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides a summary remedy for maintenance and does not apply to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Full Bench of the Bombay High Court (Leelabai’s Case):
   The court criticized this judgment for using derogatory terms like “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress” for women in void marriages. Such language was deemed unconstitutional and misogynistic, violating the fundamental right to dignity under Article 21.

Court’s Reasoning:

• Decree Interpretation: The court clarified that the term “decree” under Section 25 includes decrees of nullity under Section 11. The legislature did not distinguish between decrees of divorce and decrees of nullity when enacting Section 25.
• Discretionary Nature: Relief under Sections 24 and 25 is not automatic and depends on the specific facts of each case. The court retains the power to deny relief based on the applicant’s conduct.
• Dignity and Equality: The court stressed that referring to a woman in a void marriage using terms like “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” is unconstitutional and derogatory.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court answered the issues as follows:

1. A spouse in a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25. The grant of such relief is discretionary and depends on the conduct of the parties and the facts of the case.
2. Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted even in cases of void or voidable marriages, provided the applicant meets the financial and procedural criteria.

The court directed that the appeals be placed before the appropriate bench for a decision on merits.

Implications:

This judgment clarifies that void marriages do not completely absolve spouses of their financial responsibilities. The decision safeguards the economic rights of financially dependent spouses while preserving judicial discretion to address misuse. It also sets a precedent for the dignified treatment of parties in void marriages, rejecting misogynistic terminology and reinforcing constitutional values of equality and dignity.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to File Leave to Defend in Summary Suit for ₹4,70,000: “Litigant Cannot Shift Responsibility to Counsel’s Misconduct Without Evidence,” Emphasizes Strict Procedural Compliance Under Order XXXVII CPC