Spouse of a Void Marriage Can Claim Permanent Alimony and Interim Maintenance Under Hindu Marriage Act: Supreme Court

By an order dated 22nd August 2024, these appeals were referred to three Judges because of conflicting views on whether alimony can be granted where a marriage has been declared void; the order listed two decisions in favour and five against (para 1). The Court framed two questions: whether a spouse of a marriage declared void under Section 11 can claim permanent alimony under Section 25, and whether maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 is available in a Section 11 petition (para 6). The husband's side said a void marriage does not exist and pointed to bigamous and prohibited-relationship marriages (paras 8-9); the wife's side supported the two decisions (para 10).

A marriage void under Sections 5 and 11 is void ab initio and does not exist in law (paras 11, 13). Section 25 permits permanent alimony 'at the time of passing any decree', and the decrees under Section 23 are those granting relief under Sections 9 to 13 (paras 14, 17). The legislature drew no distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree of nullity, so a Section 11 decree cannot be excluded from Section 25(1) (para 18). The Court endorsed the reading of 'any decree' in Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga, though entitlement does not turn on a bigamous marriage's morality (paras 19-20). Yamunabai and Savitaben concerned summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and do not govern Section 25, which is available to both spouses (paras 21-22, 25). Calling a woman in a void marriage an 'illegitimate wife' or 'faithful mistress' violates her right to dignity under Article 21 and is misogynistic; the Bombay Full Bench view is not correct (para 24). Fears of absurd results are met because Section 25 uses 'may' and relief turns on conduct (para 26). Section 24 needs a pending proceeding and a spouse without sufficient independent income (para 27).