In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a spouse in a marriage declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is still entitled to seek alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Act. The verdict, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, clarifies the law on maintenance rights in cases where marriages are legally void.
The case, Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019), was referred to a larger bench due to conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the applicability of permanent alimony and interim maintenance in void marriages.
Case Background
![Play button](https://img.icons8.com/ios-filled/100/ffffff/play--v1.png)
The dispute arose between Sukhdev Singh (Appellant-Husband) and Sukhbir Kaur (Respondent-Wife), where the appellant-husband argued that since their marriage had been legally declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
The matter gained significance as previous judgments had taken contradictory views on whether maintenance could be granted in void marriages. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) that maintenance could be granted in void marriages, whereas judgments like Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) had held otherwise.
Due to conflicting precedents, the case was referred to a larger bench on August 22, 2024, to settle the issue.
Important Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined two key legal questions:
1. Does Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allow a spouse from a void marriage to claim permanent alimony and maintenance?
2. Can a spouse from a void marriage seek interim maintenance (pendente lite) under Section 24 during the proceedings?
The interpretation of the phrase “at the time of passing any decree” under Section 25 was central to the case, as it would determine whether a decree declaring a marriage void falls within its ambit.
Court’s Key Observations
While delivering its verdict, the Supreme Court made several critical observations regarding maintenance rights in void marriages:
1. Void Marriages Do Not Bar Maintenance Under Section 25
– The Court observed that the phrase “at the time of passing any decree” in Section 25 covers all decrees, including those declaring a marriage void.
“When a decree affects the marital status of a spouse, the right to claim maintenance survives. This applies equally to void marriages.”
2. Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even if the Marriage is Void
– The Court ruled that even if the marriage is void, the spouse can seek interim maintenance under Section 24 during the proceedings, provided they have no independent source of income.
“A court is not precluded from granting interim maintenance if the spouse seeking relief has no independent income. The discretion of the court is paramount.”
3. Bigamy and Maintenance: Law vs. Morality
– The appellant had argued that allowing maintenance in void marriages, including bigamous marriages, would legitimize illegality. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating:
“A bigamous marriage may be illegal, but it cannot be considered so immoral that it deprives a financially dependent spouse of the right to sustenance.”
4. Strong Condemnation of Misogynistic Language in Previous Judgments
– The Supreme Court criticized previous judgments that referred to women in void marriages as “illegitimate wives” or “faithful mistresses.”
“Using such terms violates a woman’s dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. No person should be referred to in a manner that diminishes their fundamental rights.”
Decision of the Court
After a thorough analysis of previous rulings and statutory provisions, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting maintenance in void marriages and held that:
Spouses in void marriages can claim alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Interim maintenance (pendente lite) is allowed under Section 24, even in void marriages.
Courts have full discretion to assess maintenance on a case-by-case basis.
Women’s dignity must be upheld in judicial discourse.
The court dismissed the argument that granting maintenance would encourage illegal marriages, emphasizing that financial dependence should not lead to destitution.