Background:

In the present case, the husband sought annulment after discovering his wife’s earlier marriage was still legally valid at the time of their wedding in 2012. The trial court declared the marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Later, the wife sought maintenance under Section 25, raising a key legal issue: whether a spouse in a void marriage can claim alimony. Due to conflicting judgments on this question, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench, making the case significant for clarifying maintenance rights in void marriages.

Issues

1. Can a spouse in a void Hindu marriage claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

2. Is a spouse from a void marriage entitled to interim maintenance during legal proceedings under Section 24 of the Act?

3. Does the term “either spouse” in Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act include parties to a void marriage?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • A spouse in a void Hindu marriage can claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• • The term “decree” under Section 25 includes a decree of nullity, meaning even after a marriage is declared void, financial relief can be granted.
• • Denying maintenance in void marriages would violate the right to dignity and equality under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• • Courts should avoid derogatory and demeaning labels like “concubine” or “illegitimate wife” that undermine human dignity.
• • Previous rulings that denied maintenance in void marriages failed to protect vulnerable spouses and were rightly criticized.
• • The grant of maintenance is discretionary; courts must consider factors like the parties’ income, conduct, and dependency before awarding relief.

Decision:

The Supreme court in his Judgement:

• • Held that a spouse in a void Hindu marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• • It clarified that a decree of nullity granted under Section 11 qualifies as a “decree” under Section 25, enabling the aggrieved spouse to seek financial relief even though the marriage is void ab initio.
• • The Court emphasized that denying maintenance solely on the ground that the marriage was void would violate the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• • The judgment rejected derogatory terms such as “concubine” or “illegitimate wife,” upholding the dignity of the spouse seeking maintenance.
• • However, the Court made it clear that the grant of maintenance is not automatic; the courts must exercise judicial discretion, considering factors like income, conduct, and dependency before awarding alimony or maintenance.

Why this case matters:

• • Clarifies maintenance rights for spouses in void Hindu marriages, ending conflicting court decisions.
• • Ensures financial protection for vulnerable spouses, especially women, even if the marriage is void.
• • Upholds the constitutional right to dignity by rejecting derogatory terms and unfair treatment.
• • Expands access to interim maintenance and permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act.
• • Sets an important legal precedent guiding lower courts across India on this issue.

Laws related thereto:

Under Constitution:

• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal dignity, which the Court emphasized protects spouses seeking maintenance, regardless of the marriage’s validity.

Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

• Section 11: Deals with the nullity of marriage - a marriage is void if either party had a living spouse at the time of solemnization, among other grounds.

• Section 24: Provides for interim maintenance (maintenance pendente lite) to either spouse during the pendency of proceedings under the Act.

• Section 25: Allows the court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance to either spouse after a decree of divorce or nullity.

Judicial Precedents:

• Chand Dhawan v. Union of India (1993): Recognized maintenance rights for spouses in void marriages, supporting the idea that financial support can be claimed even if the marriage is void.

• Ramesh Chandra Daga v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980): Held that a decree of nullity under Section 11 is a “decree” for the purpose of Section 25 alimony claims.

• Bhausaheb v. Lellabai (1959): Earlier case denying maintenance to spouses in void marriages, which led to confusion and conflicting rulings in later cases.

• Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab (2011): Denied maintenance in void marriages, representing the opposite view to Chand Dhawan, highlighting judicial conflict.

• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): Though not directly on void marriages, it’s a landmark on maintenance rights, emphasizing social justice and protection for women.