Supreme Court Rules Alimony and Maintenance Can Be Granted Even in Void Marriages Under Hindu Marriage Act

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that interim maintenance and permanent alimony can be granted to either party in a marriage declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, clarifies that a spouse from a void marriage has the right to seek financial support under Section 25 of the HMA.

The ruling came in response to a reference made by a two-judge bench in August 2024, addressing conflicting interpretations on whether financial relief could be granted in cases where a marriage is declared void.

Court Affirms Discretionary Nature of Alimony and Maintenance

The bench emphasized that while a spouse from a void marriage is entitled to seek maintenance, the grant of permanent alimony remains discretionary and is subject to the facts and conduct of the parties involved.

"A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the Act. However, whether such relief can be granted always depends on the facts of each case," the court stated.

On the issue of interim maintenance, the judgment clarified that even if a court prima facie determines a marriage to be void or voidable, it can still grant maintenance pendente lite (temporary maintenance during proceedings) under Section 24 of the Act, provided the conditions outlined in the provision are met.

"While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking relief, as the grant of such relief is discretionary," the ruling added.

Supreme Court Condemns Misogynistic Terminology in Legal Judgments

Beyond the substantive legal issue, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the use of derogatory and misogynistic language in judicial rulings. It took particular exception to the Bombay High Court’s use of terms such as “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress” in one of its judgments, calling them “highly inappropriate” and “misogynistic.”

"Calling the wife of a marriage declared void as an ‘illegitimate wife’ is unacceptable and affects the dignity of the concerned woman," the bench remarked.

The court further noted that while such language was used for women, no equivalent adjectives were used for husbands in void marriages, reflecting a clear gender bias.

Legal and Social Implications

The ruling reinforces the rights of individuals in void marriages, ensuring that financial vulnerability does not arise solely from the legal status of their union. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s condemnation of gendered and inappropriate judicial language sets a precedent for ensuring dignity and respect in legal discourse.

By upholding the principle of fairness in financial relief and rejecting regressive terminology, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step toward gender justice and equitable family law adjudication.

This decision is expected to have a profound impact on family law jurisprudence, offering greater clarity on financial rights in void marriages while reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding dignity and equality in legal proceedings.