Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Void Marriage – Permanent Alimony – Interim Maintenance

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Void Marriage – Permanent Alimony – Interim Maintenance

(i) Void marriage – categories – effect.
A marriage is void where: (a) either party has a spouse living; (b) parties are within prohibited degrees unless custom permits; (c) parties are sapindas unless custom permits. Such marriages are void ab initio and do not exist in the eyes of law.
(Paras 11–13)

(ii) Section 25 HMA – “Any decree” – Decree of nullity under Section 11 included.
The expression “any decree” in S.25 refers to the “decree in proceedings” under S.23, i.e., decrees granting relief under Ss. 9–13. A decree declaring a marriage void under S.11 is therefore a decree within S.25.
(Paras 14–18)

(iii) Permanent alimony – spouse of void marriage entitled to apply – relief discretionary.
A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under S.11 is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance under S.25.
Grant of relief is discretionary, dependent on conduct and circumstances.
(Paras 18, 20, 22, 26, 28(a))

(iv) Section 24 HMA – interim maintenance – available even where marriage is prima facie void.
Even if the matrimonial court forms a prima facie view that the marriage is void or voidable, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite under S.24, provided statutory conditions are satisfied.
Relief under S.24 is discretionary and conduct of the party must be considered.
(Paras 27, 28(b))

B. Criminal Procedure Code – S.125 – Distinguished

Proceedings under S.125 CrPC / S.144 BNSS operate in a different field and are summary in nature. Cases such as Yamunabai (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben (2005) 3 SCC 636, which deny maintenance to a party of a void marriage under S.125 CrPC, have no application to S.25 HMA.
(Paras 21–22, 25)

C. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – S.18 – Distinction

Right under S.18 (wife’s maintenance) is distinct from the right under S.25 HMA (spousal alimony after decree). High Court decisions confusing the two are incorrect.
(Para 23)

D. Women’s Dignity – Article 21 – Use of derogatory expressions disapproved

Expressions such as “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” used by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court violate the woman’s dignity under Article 21 and are misogynistic.
The reasoning of the Full Bench is “obviously not correct.”
(Para 24)

E. OVERRULED / DECLARED INCORRECT JUDGMENTS

(i) Full Bench, Bombay High Court

Bhausaheb @ Sandhu s/o Raghuji Magar v. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar,
AIR 2004 Bom 283 (FB)
Held: Not correct law; reasoning and terminology condemned.
(Para 24)

(ii) Andhra Pradesh High Court

Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma, AIR 1999 AP 19
Held: Incorrect; based on S.18 HA&M Act and wrongly applied to S.25 HMA.
(Para 23)

(iii) Punjab & Haryana High Court (cited as HP)

Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh, (2003) 1 HLR 100 / 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 498
Held: Entirely contrary to Chand Dhawan; not correct law.
(Para 23)

F. RELIED-ON / AFFIRMED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS

(i) Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan

(1993) 3 SCC 406
Relied on for construction of “any decree”.
(Paras 18–19)

(ii) Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga

(2005) 2 SCC 33
Relied on; view reaffirmed.
(Paras 19–20)

F. FINAL HOLDING (PER PARA 28)

(a) A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under S.11 HMA is entitled to seek permanent alimony under S.25; grant of relief is discretionary, based on facts and conduct.
(b) Even if the marriage is prima facie void or voidable, the court may grant maintenance pendente lite under S.24, subject to statutory conditions and judicial discretion.