Supreme Court Settles Key Questions on Alimony in Void Hindu Marriages
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on Wednesday, February 12, 2025. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, provided authoritative clarity on two crucial questions regarding the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.
Court Resolves Conflicting Legal Views
The Supreme Court addressed whether spouses can claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act when their marriage has been declared void under Section 11. This ruling resolves previous conflicting decisions from the Supreme Court itself.
The court examined the matter after it was referred to a three-judge bench on August 22, 2024. Parties had highlighted contradictory judicial opinions on whether alimony could be granted in cases where marriages were declared legally void.
Key Rulings from the Bench
The Supreme Court answered both questions clearly and definitively:
On Permanent Alimony (Section 25): The court ruled that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25. However, the court emphasized that granting such relief always depends on the specific facts of each case and the conduct of the parties involved. The grant of relief under Section 25 remains discretionary.
On Interim Maintenance (Section 24): The court held that even if a court reaches a prima facie conclusion that a marriage between parties is void or voidable, it is not prevented from granting maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance) while proceedings are pending. This applies provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. The court will always consider the conduct of the party seeking relief when deciding on interim maintenance, as this relief is also discretionary.
Legal Arguments Presented
The appellant, represented by counsel, argued that including a decree declaring a marriage void within the expression "any decree" used in Section 25 would be illogical. He contended that a marriage declared void under Section 11 is void ab initio, meaning it never legally existed, and therefore cannot confer spousal rights. Based on this, he argued that previous Supreme Court decisions in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga were incorrect.
The respondent, represented by senior counsel, countered these arguments. She submitted that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a special provision enacted to further Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution, which permits special measures for protecting women. She argued that denying maintenance and alimony solely because a marriage is declared invalid would defeat the legislative intent behind the law.
Court's Detailed Analysis
On the First Question: While acknowledging that marriages falling under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act are void ab initio, the court rejected the appellant's contentions. The court 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 court clarified that a spouse's right to seek alimony and maintenance arises when any decree is passed by any court exercising its jurisdiction under the Act. The bench affirmed the correctness of the previous judgments in Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra cases.
The court observed that Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with "decree in proceedings," pertains only to decrees granting reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the Act. Importantly, the court noted that while enacting Section 25(1), the legislature made no 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 from its purview.
Conditions for Interim Maintenance
The court specified that interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted even where a marriage is prima facie void or voidable, provided two conditions are met:
- A proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is currently pending
- The applicant lacks sufficient independent income to support themselves
The court emphasized that the grant of interim relief under Section 24 is discretionary in nature. While deciding such matters, courts will always consider both the conduct and financial situation of the party seeking relief.
Significance of the Ruling
This Supreme Court judgment provides much-needed clarity on a complex area of family law. It ensures that spouses in void marriages are not automatically denied financial support, while maintaining judicial discretion to consider individual circumstances. The ruling balances legal principles with practical considerations of financial need and fairness in matrimonial disputes.
The decision reinforces the protective intent behind the Hindu Marriage Act's provisions regarding alimony and maintenance. It acknowledges that even in marriages declared void, financial responsibilities may still exist depending on the specific facts and conduct of the parties involved.
