In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has criticized the use of the terms ‘illegitimate wife’ and ‘faithful mistress’ in a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court. The Apex Court held that such terminology is not only inappropriate but also violates the fundamental rights of women under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity.
Background of the Case
The case, Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019, was referred to a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court due to conflicting views on whether a spouse from a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The key legal issue was whether a marriage declared void by a competent court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act entitles the spouse to maintenance under Section 25.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, delivered its judgment on February 12, 2025, addressing the controversy surrounding void marriages and the rights of spouses in such cases.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary issues before the court were:
Whether a spouse from a void marriage is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Whether a spouse can claim interim maintenance under Section 24 during proceedings to declare a marriage void?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting maintenance in both situations, stating that the term ‘any decree’ under Section 25 includes a decree of nullity. The judgment upheld the earlier precedents of Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406 and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33, which recognized the right of a spouse from a void marriage to claim maintenance.
The court further clarified that the power under Section 25 is discretionary and should be exercised based on the circumstances of each case. “The grant of permanent alimony does not depend on whether a bigamous marriage is moral or immoral, but on the financial and social dependency of the spouse,” the judgment noted.
Criticism of High Court’s Language
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Supreme Court’s strong disapproval of the terminology used by the Bombay High Court in a previous ruling. The High Court had referred to a woman from a void marriage as an ‘illegitimate wife’ and a ‘faithful mistress.’ The Supreme Court found these terms to be misogynistic and unconstitutional, stating:
“Describing a woman who is a party to a void marriage with terms such as ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ is a grave violation of her fundamental rights. Such language is deeply offensive and undermines the dignity of women. No judicial authority should use terminology that strips individuals of their constitutional right to equality and dignity.”
The court emphasized that every person has the fundamental right to live with dignity, and the use of such degrading language reflects gender bias, which has no place in judicial discourse.
Arguments Presented
The appellant argued that recognizing the right to alimony in void marriages could lead to absurd results, citing examples where a woman misrepresents her marital status or engages in relationships prohibited under Hindu law.
The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, contended that Section 25 is meant to protect financially dependent spouses, irrespective of whether the marriage was valid or void. The counsel further argued that Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows for special provisions in favor of women, justified granting maintenance in such cases.
