Even if marriage never legally existed, maintenance can still follow: Supreme Court

The Court also observed that the grant of interim relief under Section 24 is discretionary in nature and while deciding the Court will always consider conduct and financials of the party seeking reliefs. (AI image)

The three-judges bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered an authoritative ruling on the grant of permanent alimony and interim maintenance under Sections 25 and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), respectively, even where a marriage is declared void under Section 11 of the HMA. The ruling, delivered by the bench on 12.02.2025, resolved the conflicting Supreme Court decisions and clarified that the term “any decree” in Section 25 of the HMA includes decrees declaring marriages void under Section 11 of the HMA. The Court separately examined and clarified both questions relating to (i) the entitlement of a spouse to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA, and (ii) the grant of maintenance Pendente lite under Section 24 of the HMA, in cases where the marriage is declared void by the competent court under Section 11 of the Act or where a declaration of nullity is sought under Section 11 of the Act.The Court answered the questions as follows:“a. 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 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 b. 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 1955 Act, 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.”Background:The matter was referred to a three- Judges bench pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2024, wherein, the parties pointed out the existence of conflicting judicial views on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA, whether alimony can be granted where the marriage has been declared void.The appellant (Husband) through counsel contended that it would be illogical to include a decree declaring a marriage as void within the expression “any decree” used in Section 25 of the HMA. He submitted that a marriage declared void under Section 11 is void ab initio, i.e., legally non- existent, therefore, cannot confer spousal rights. On this basis, he contended that the view taken by this Court in the case of Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga is incorrect and that Section 25 of the HMA should not apply to a spouse whose marriage has been declared void.Opposing these contentions, the Respondent (wife) through senior counsel submitted that Section 25 of the HMA is a special provision especially enacted in furtherance of Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution, which permits special measures for protecting women. She further argued that denying maintenance and alimony solely on the ground of marital invalidity would defeat the legislative intent and the view taken in the aforementioned judgments is correct.Analysis:On the Question (i)While acknowledging that marriages falling under Section 11 of the HMA such as those involving bigamy, prohibited relationships or sapinda relationships are void ab initio, the Court rejected the appellant’s contentions and held that Section 25 empowers a matrimonial court to grant permanent alimony either at the time of passing any decree or at any time thereafter. The core issue, therefore, was the scope and meaning of the term “decree” used in the provision. The Court clarified that a spouse right to seek alimony and maintenance arises when any decree is passed by any court exercising its jurisdiction under the Act.Affirming the correctness of Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, the Court further observed that Section 23 of the HMA which deals with “decree in proceedings” pertains to only decrees granting reliefs under Section 9 to 13 of the Act. It noted that while enacting Section 25(1), the legislature did not draw any distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree declaring marriage as a nullity or void. Therefore, the Court held that a decree of nullity passed under Section 11 also falls within the scope of Section 25 and cannot be excluded.In this context the court held that:“18. While enacting Section 25(1), the legislature has made no distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree declaring marriage as a nullity. Therefore, on a plain reading of Section 25(1), it will not be possible to exclude a decree of nullity under Section 11 from the purview of Section 25(1) of the 1955 Act.”.On the Question (ii)The court held that interim maintenance (pendente lite) under Section 24 of the HMA can be granted even where the marriage is prima facie void or voidable, provided the conditions for the applicability of the Section 24 are met:1. A proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is pending, and2. The applicant lacks sufficient independent income.The Court also observed that the grant of interim relief under Section 24 is discretionary in nature and while deciding the Court will always consider conduct and financials of the party seeking reliefs.In this context the court held as under:“Even if, prima facie, the matrimonial court finds the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned above are satisfied. The grant of relief under Section 24 is discretionary as the Section uses the word ‘may’. While deciding the prayer for 7 (2005) 3 SCC 636 10 interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking the relief. It provides for issuing a direction to pay a reasonable amount.”