Home / Current Affairs

Family Law

Permanent and Interim Maintenance in Void Marriages

    «
 13-Feb-2025

Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur 

“Calling a woman an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 

Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih held that  “Calling a woman an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025). 

What was the Background of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur Case?   

  • There were two issues that the Court considered in this case: 
    • Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Act (HMA) is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of HMA? 
    • Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of HMA, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of HMA? 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court observed that Section 25 of HMA confers power on the matrimonial Court to grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto”.  
  • A cause of action arises for the spouses to apply for permanent alimony and maintenance when any decree is passed by any court exercising its jurisdiction under the HMA. 
  • The entitlement under Section 25 of HMA does not depend on whether the bigamous marriage is moral or immoral. 
  • Further, the Court held that the grant of decree under Section 25 of HMA is discretionary and the Court can always turn down the prayer for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of HMA. 
  • Further, with regard to grant of maintenance pedente lite the Court held that the conditions for applicability of Section 24 of HMA are as follows: 
    • There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and 
    • The court must come to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. 
  • Finally, the following conclusions were made by the Court: 
    • A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of HMA is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary; and 
    • Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the HMA, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. 
    • While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.

What is Void Marriage under HMA? 

  • When Section 5 of HMA is read in conjunction with Section 11 of HMA the following categories of marriages are void: 
    • If one or both the parties to the marriage have a spouse living at the time of marriage;  
    • The parties to the marriage are within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two and  
    • The parties are sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two. 
  • Section 11 of HMA provides for the grant of a declaration of a marriage as null and void. 
  • Such marriages are void ab initio. Marriages falling in the above categories do not exist in the eyes of law at all. 

How Were the Earlier Decisions Interpreted in this Case? 

  • Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr (1988) 
    • The Court in this case held that when the marriage is a nullity under Section 25 of HMA, the spouse of such a marriage is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • The Court held in the present case i.e. Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025)  that Section 125 of CrPC operates on a totally different field. It is a quick and efficacious remedy made available to the wife and children. 
    • The proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC are summary in nature. 
    • The Court made differentiation between remedy under Section 25 of HMA and Section 125 of CrPC: 
      • The remedy under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is completely different from the remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC. 
      • Section 25 of HMA confers rights on the spouses of the marriage declared as void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act to claim maintenance from the other spouse. The remedy is available to both husband and wife. 
      • The principles which apply to Section 125 CrPC cannot be applied to Section 25 of HMA. 
      • Further, the relief under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted to husband. 
  • Bhausaheb @ Sandhu s/o Raghuji Magar v. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar (2004) 
    • The Full bench of Bombay High Court in the para 18 of this judgment called the wife of a marriage declared as void as “illegitimate wife”. 
    • In fact in Para 24 the Court called such a wife “faithful mistress”. 
    • The Court held in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025) that calling the wife of a void marriage as “illegitimate” is very inappropriate. 
      • The Court observed that calling such a wife “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” will amount to violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
      • The Court observed that use of such a language is misogynistic. 
      • It was observed that noone can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is party to a void marriage.