New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse.

Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, the matrimonial court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite, added the apex court.

In view of the conflicting views on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the question as to whether alimony can be granted where marriage has been declared void was referred to a 3-judge Bench in August last year.

Apart from the above question, the 3-judge Bench also dealt with the question as to whether in a petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act seeking nullity of marriage, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite (pending the litigation).

The appellant’s counsel contended that a marriage declared void under Section 11 is void ab initio (which does not exist) and therefore, after a marriage is declared void, a spouse cannot claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriages are void if one or both the parties to the marriage have a living spouse at the time of marriage, the parties to the marriage are within the degrees of prohibited relationship or the parties are sapindas of each other unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

The above categories of marriages are void at the inception (void ab initio) and such a marriage does not exist at all in the eyes of the law. Section 25 confers a power on the matrimonial court to grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto” and a cause of action arises for the spouses to apply for permanent alimony and maintenance when any decree is passed by any family court.

“While enacting Section 25(1), the legislature has made no distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree declaring marriage as a nullity. Therefore, on a plain reading of Section 25(1), it will not be possible to exclude a decree of nullity under Section 11 from the purview of Section 25(1) of the 1955 Act,” ruled the 3-judge Bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka.

The Bench, also comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, differentiated the remedy under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 of the CrPC (equivalent to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

“It (Section 25) confers rights on the spouses of the marriage declared as void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act to claim maintenance from the other spouse. The remedy is available to both husband and wife. The principles which apply to Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be applied to Section 25 of the 1955 Act. The relief under Section 125 of the CrPC can be granted to wife or child and not to husband,” added the Justice Oka-led Bench.

Further, the apex court deprecated the judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, calling the wife of a marriage declared void as an “illegitimate wife” and describing her as a “faithful mistress”.

Terming the use of such words as “misogynistic”, the SC said: “Under Section 21 of the Constitution of India, every person has a fundamental right to lead a dignified life. Calling a woman an ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“Describing a woman by using these words is against the ethos and ideals of our Constitution. No one can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage. Unfortunately, we find that such objectionable language is used in a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court. The use of such words is misogynistic.”

The Supreme Court did not accept the submission that granting permanent alimony in cases of void marriages would lead to a “ridiculous result”, saying that the grant of a decree under Section 25 is discretionary and if the conduct of the spouse who applies for maintenance is such that the said spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the matrimonial court can always turn down the prayer for the grant of permanent alimony.

After analysing the entire scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act, it said that a matrimonial court may grant interim maintenance in pending proceedings for a grant of a decree under Sections 9 to 13 if a court comes to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding.

“Even if, prima facie, the matrimonial court finds the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite,” the apex court ruled.

While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking the relief, it added.

Further, it said: “A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary.”

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the strict provisions of law were for the welfare of women and not a means to “chastise, threaten, domineer or extort” their husbands.

Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed a Hindu marriage was considered to be a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a “commercial venture”.

Notably, the bench observed the invocation of Indian Penal Code sections including rape, criminal intimidation and subjecting a married woman to cruelty — as a “combined package” in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes — was condemned by the top court on several occasions.

“The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands,” it said.

The observations came when the bench dissolved the marriage between an estranged couple on the grounds of its irretrievable breakdown.

“The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for,” the bench said.

The husband in the case was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to the estranged wife as a full and final settlement for all her claims within a month.

The bench however commented on cases where the wife and her family tended to use a criminal complaint with these serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which were mostly monetary in nature.

It said the police were sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even his relatives, including aged and bedridden parents and grandparents, with trial courts refraining from giving bail to the accused owing to the “gravity of the offences” in the FIR.

“The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation,” it said.

The Supreme Court noted a plea was filed before it by the wife seeking transfer of a divorce petition filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending in a court in Bhopal to a court in Pune.

The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.

The court said the parties and their family members were involved in numerous litigations during the brief period of their marital relationship.

The bench said the marriage did not really take off at all, observing no continuous cohabitation of the estranged couple.

Considering the point of alimony, the court said the wife claimed the estranged husband had a net-worth of Rs 5,000 crore with multiple businesses and properties in the US and in India, and had paid the first wife at least Rs 500 crore upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia.

“Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent,” the bench noted.

The court expressed serious reservations with the tendency of the parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party.

The bench said it was often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlighted the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then asked for an amount that could equal their wealth of the spouse.

“However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself,” it said.

The bench wondered if the wife would be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth if due to some unfortunate event, post-separation, he was rendered a pauper.

Fixing alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula, it said.

In the joint plea jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce, the husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs 8 crore towards full and final settlement of all claims.

“The family court at Pune has assessed Rs 10 crore as the quantum of permanent alimony that petitioner could be entitled to. We accept the said finding of the family court, Pune. An additional amount of Rs 2 crore is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat…,” said the bench.

The court also quashed the criminal cases filed by the wife against the estranged husband. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)