Can Alimony Be Granted in a Void Marriage Under the Hindu Marriage Act? Supreme Court to Decide

10 minutes ago

2 min read

In a significant case concerning the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on whether alimony can be granted when a marriage is declared void. The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 25 of the HMA, which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance, and its applicability when a decree of nullity is passed.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih heard arguments regarding whether the courts have the jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Section 25 when a marriage is deemed void. The case was referred to a larger bench after a division bench highlighted conflicting rulings by various courts on this matter.

During the hearing, Justice Oka strongly criticized the terminology used by the Bombay High Court in a prior judgment (Bhausaheb @ Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar v. Leelabai W/o Bhausaheb Magar), which referred to a wife from a void marriage as an "illegitimate wife." Justice Oka emphasized that such language violated the dignity and rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. He questioned the logic behind denying maintenance simply because the marriage was declared void, noting that the term "illegitimacy" is more appropriately applied to children, not spouses.

The core legal issue stems from Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA, which provide for interim and permanent maintenance, respectively. The main question before the Court is whether these sections apply when a marriage is declared void under Section 11 of the HMA, which covers marriages involving bigamy, prohibited degrees of relationship, or sapinda relationships.

The appellant-husband's counsel argued that an "illegitimate wife" should not be entitled to maintenance, suggesting that a decree of nullity does not fall within the scope of "any decree" under Section 25. However, Justice Oka clarified that Section 25 provides courts the authority to grant maintenance during the passing of any decree, including one of nullity. He further noted that the issue at hand is not whether maintenance should be granted, but whether courts have the jurisdiction to grant it in cases of void marriages.

Justice Oka also distinguished the current case from the ruling in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, which held that wives in void marriages are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He explained that Section 125 of the CrPC provides only a summary remedy, while the current issue involves a personal law provision under Section 25 of the HMA.

The bench emphasized that denying maintenance to women in void marriages would leave them destitute, which contradicts the objective of granting maintenance under personal law.

Counsel for the respondent-wife argued that the marriage in the case was not void, but the Court clarified that it was proceeding under the assumption that the marriage was void in order to resolve the legal question before the regular bench decides the case.

This issue raises important questions about the rights of women in void marriages and the broader scope of maintenance laws under personal law.