Facts
- In this case Sukhdev Singh (Appellant) and Sukhbir Kaur (Respondent) were involved in a relationship of marriage. The marriage was solemnized on 11.06.2012 at Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Amritsar as per Hindu Sikh rituals.
- Later the marriage was declared void by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage became void on the basis of concealment of the fact that the wife was already married.
- On the basis of the decree of trial court both the parties found themselves in a complex situation regarding their rights and liabilities; mainly concerning maintenance.
- Both the parties had their own divergent opinions on the matter whether a spouse of void marriage could claim maintenance or alimony, so the dispute arose between them and the matter came before the court.
- There are various conflicting judgements present relating to the matter of maintenance. Lastly, the leading case was referred to a three-judge bench of The Supreme court for clarifications.
- The Supreme Court has to decide whether the parties to the void marriage could get the interim maintenance or permanent alimony.
Issues Raised
- Whether a spouse of the void marriage can be entitled to claim the permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955?
- Whether a spouse in void marriage can claim the interim maintenance during the pendency of the case and maintenance pendente lite Under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955?
- Whether the term “any decree” used in Section 25 includes the void marriages?
- Whether the Courts can exercise their own discretion to grant the order of maintenance in the cases of void marriages?
Contentions
APPELLANT- Sukhdev Singh
The Learned Counsel of The Appellant argued that when the marriage once declared void it lost the existence in the eyes of law. So, the spouse should not be entitled to get the permanent alimony under Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act because they are not considered as a legitimate spouse. In order to support the argument the counsel of Appellant mentioned a judgement – YAMUNABAI ANANTRAO ADHAV V. ANANTRAO SHIVRAM ADHAV & ANOTHER in which The Supreme Court held that the marriage of a woman according to Hindu rituals with a man who already has a living spouse is null and void in the eyes of law so the wife cannot be entitled the benefit under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
The Counsel of Appellant also highlighted that an illegitimate wife can never be in the same position with the divorced wife under Section 25 as a void marriage is not recognized by law by referring the landmark case of BHAUSAHEB @ SANDHU S/O RAGUJI MAGAR V. LEELABAI W/O BHAUSAHEB MAGAR. And The counsel also addressed that void marriages also involve the parties who contravene the marriage laws intentionally for example bigamous relations and questioned- “Should they get the opportunity of maintenance?”
The learned Counsel also mentioned some other cases relating to maintenance in case void marriages. They are as follows-
ABBAYOLLA REDDY V. PADMAMMA In this case the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that- Since the marriage between the appellant and respondent was void under Section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 due to appellant’s pre-existing lawful marriage, Padmamma could claim maintenance. He also mentioned the cases of NAVDEEP KAUR V. DILRAJ SINGH and SAVITABEN SOMABAI BHATIYA V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
RESPONDENT- Sukhbir Kaur
The Learned Counsel of The Respondent addressed that Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was made to safeguard the financial interest of the woman. The Counsel was referred the Judgement of CHAND DHAWAN V. JAWAHARLAL DHAWAN in which The Supreme Court held that- A spouse cannot get the permanent alimony until the marriage is totally terminated but she can get the maintenance of pendente lite under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also referred the Judgement of RAMESHCHANDRA RAMPRATAPJI DAGA V. RAMESHWARI RAMESHCHANDRA DAGA for highlighting that such cases correctly interpret Section 25 and contend that Alimony is a special provision aimed at supporting the woman as provided by Article 15(3) of The Indian Constitution. The core content of Article 15(3) of the Constitution is Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provisions for women and children.
Verdict
Three Bench Judges of The Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the verdict of this case on February 12, 2025. The Court held that a spouse whose marriage has been declared as null and void under Section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 still entitled to claim Permanent Alimony and Interim Maintenance Under Section 24 and 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 but the maintenance can be granted on the basis fairness and to ensure financial protection.
Rationale behind the verdict
The Supreme Court mainly relied on the logical reasoning in CHAND DHAWAN and RAMESHCHANDRA DAGA cases and interpreted Section 24 and Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The leading Judgement of SUKHDEV SINGH V. SUKHBIR KAUR emphasized the phrase “any decree” encompasses all forms of matrimonial decrees under the Act, including for void marriages, voidable marriages, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation and divorce. The Court stated that Section 25 must be read by including the decrees of nullity because while enacting 25(1), the legislature has made no distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree declaring marriage as a nullity.
The Court clarified in the judgement that Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act operates in totally distinct domains. Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 talks about the substantive right of the parties under a matrimonial relationship connected to maintenance and alimony. Whereas, Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the summary remedy for financially dependent wives, Children and parents.
While deciding the case, The Court also considered a well-known and recognized legal provision of the Customary Hindu Law like The Mohammedan Law which permitted the bigamous marriages which were prevalent in all Hindu families especially The Hindu Royal families. After the codification of The Hindu Marriage Act the concept of bigamous marriage is dissolved as per Section 5 of The Act. As per the observations of The Court a bigamous marriage may be declared as illegal but not immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse who is financially weak.
The Supreme Court in this judgement referred to the decision of The Bombay High Court in BHAUSAHEB @ SANDHU V. LEELABAI case where the Full bench has coined the term “illegitimate wife”. The Supreme Court criticized this term by stating that it is very inappropriate to call a wife of a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife”. It will harm the dignity of the wife which is unconstitutional in nature. Article 21 of The Constitution of India ensures that every person has the right to live with dignity and use of the word “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” for a woman who is a party to a void marriage will be the infringement of fundamental rights of the woman.
The court also emphasized that to grant relief under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is discretionary as the Section uses the word ‘may’. Thus, while deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, The Court would consider the conduct and fairness of the party who seeks for relief and then it can issue a reasonable amount of money for maintenance.
Defects of Law
As we observed in this case The Supreme Court of India broadly discusses the maintenance right of a woman in void marriages. The main concern is while passing the judgement The court states that- According to Hindu Customary Law a bigamous marriage was practicable but there is a bar in this practice as per Section 5 of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and also emphasized though bigamy is illegal it is not immoral and the spouse is able to claim maintenance. This interpretation is in contradiction with the concept of natural justice and also affects the concept of marriage. Bigamy in its literal sense means the state of being married to two people at the same time. It means to cheat somebody by concealing facts which is similar to unfairness.
One more observation about the Judgement, The Supreme Court made a clear distinction between Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage act, 1955 regarding its operation. The court held that Under Section 25 the spouse has the substantive right to claim maintenance and this interpretation confers the exclusive right to the spouse to claim maintenance under a matrimonial framework. So, in this scenario this provision may be used to take undue advantage from the other party to the marriage.
The Court also provided that a spouse of a void marriage can be entitled to get the interim maintenance and permanent alimony under Section 24 and Section 25 of The Act and this provision might help some unfair persons also, who willingly enter into a bigamous marriage in order to avail the facilities of maintenance. This is not the criticism of the judgement, rather it is the concern about the increased rate of cases where the spouses refused to live in a matrimonial relationship without any sufficient reason and misuse the right of maintenance by claiming a lump sum amount.
Inference
The Judgement of the Supreme Court in SUKHDEV SINGH V. SUKHBIR KAUR is very purposeful in the field of law as it paved the way to get financial support even in void marriages. It marks a significant decision in harmonizing the conflicting authorities in the legal field and ensuring financial stability to the parties of a void marriage. The decision also provides a wider ambit to the word “any decree” as used in Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 by including the decrees of nullity also. From this precedent judgement, the lower courts also get the authority to grant interim maintenance or permanent maintenance in cases of void marriages also.
The judgement also concerns the fact that in a void marriage no party can be in destitution and has a right to get the financial support from the other party. It promotes fairness, gender justice and respect for individual dignity across the territory of India. It also specifies that the dignity of woman cannot be harmed only for the reason she is a party of a void marriage and also added that the state can make special provisions for women and children as per Article 15 (3) of The Indian Constitution.
Madhurima Mondal
South Calcutta Law College