“Supreme Court Clarifies Alimony Rights in Void Marriages: Landmark Judgment on Sections 24 & 25 of Hindu Marriage Act”

Case Reference:

• Sukhdev Singh VS Sukhbir Singh 2025 INSC 197
• Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 5726 of 2019
• Judgment by: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
• Date of Judgment: February 12, 2025

---

Key Legal Issues

1. Entitlement to Permanent Alimony Under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
   • Whether a spouse of a void marriage (declared as void under Section 11) can claim permanent alimony and maintenance.
2. Grant of Maintenance Pendente Lite Under Section 24
   • Whether maintenance pendente lite can be granted in a pending petition where a marriage is being declared void.

---

Background

• The case was referred to a three-judge bench due to conflicting interpretations regarding Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The central issue revolved around whether a spouse in a void marriage (declared null and void under Section 11) is entitled to alimony or maintenance.
• Previous judgments in favor and against granting alimony were examined.

Judgments in favor of granting alimony:

1. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406
2. Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33

Judgments against granting alimony:

1. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530
2. Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma AIR 1999 AP 19
3. Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh (2003) 1 HLR 100
4. Bhausaheb Magar v. Leelabai Magar (2004 AIR Bom. 283)
5. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636

---

Court’s Analysis

Interpretation of Relevant Provisions

1. Section 5 of HMA (Conditions for a Valid Hindu Marriage)
   • A Hindu marriage is void if it violates any of these conditions:
     • Either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage.
     • The parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship.
     • The parties are sapindas, unless permitted by custom.
2. Section 11 (Void Marriages)
   • If a marriage violates the conditions under Section 5(i), (iv), or (v), it shall be null and void.
3. Section 24 (Maintenance Pendente Lite and Litigation Expenses)
   • Allows interim maintenance if either spouse lacks sufficient income.
4. Section 25 (Permanent Alimony and Maintenance)
   • Provides that the court may grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree” under the Act.

Does Section 25 Cover Void Marriages?

• The court examined whether the phrase “any decree” in Section 25 includes a decree of nullity under Section 11.
• It was held that Section 25 applies to all decrees, including void marriages.
• The purpose of alimony is not to validate the marriage but to ensure that a dependent spouse is not left destitute.
• The court dismissed the argument that bigamous or incestuous marriages would lead to absurd results.
  • It clarified that granting maintenance under Section 25 is discretionary and courts can deny relief based on conduct.
• Reliance on Previous Supreme Court Cases:
  • Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra Daga were upheld, confirming that maintenance can be granted even if a marriage is declared void.
  • The court criticized the judgment in Bhausaheb Magar, which had used the term “illegitimate wife”, calling it misogynistic and unconstitutional.

Maintenance Under Section 24 (Pendente Lite)?

• The court held that maintenance pendente lite can be granted even if a marriage is likely to be declared void.
• As long as the party seeking maintenance demonstrates financial need, courts can grant relief.

---

Final Decision (Judgment)

1. Permanent Alimony Under Section 25
   • A spouse in a void marriage can claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of HMA.
   • However, the grant of such maintenance is discretionary and depends on the conduct of the parties.
2. Interim Maintenance Under Section 24
   • Courts can grant maintenance pendente lite even if the marriage is prima facie void, provided the spouse seeking maintenance demonstrates financial dependence.
3. Criticism of Previous Rulings
   • The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Bhausaheb Magar was strongly criticized for using terms like “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress”, calling it a violation of Article 21 (Right to Dignity).

---

Significance of the Judgment

✅ Clarity on Alimony in Void Marriages

• Resolves conflicting interpretations and confirms that Section 25 applies even in cases of void marriages.

✅ Prevents Economic Hardship

• Ensures that a financially dependent spouse is not left destitute even if the marriage is declared void.

✅ Affirms Women’s Rights

• Reinforces gender justice by ensuring women in void marriages are not deprived of financial support.

✅ Discretion of Courts

• Courts retain the power to reject alimony claims based on misconduct or bad faith.

---

Conclusion

This landmark Supreme Court ruling ensures economic security for spouses in void marriages, affirming the principle that financial dependence should not leave a spouse destitute. It upholds justice and gender equality while maintaining judicial discretion in granting alimony and maintenance.