Answering a reference made by a two-judge bench in August 2024, the Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that interim maintenance and permanent alimony can be claimed by either of the parties even in a marriage declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. The top court also took exception to the expression “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” used by the Bombay HC in one of its judgments, and said “the use of such words is misogynistic” and “very inappropriate”. A bench of Justices A S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih said, “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.” The top court, however, added, “whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary.” On the question of grant of interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, the judgement said, “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.” It added that “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.” The reference arose from conflicting decisions for and against grant of alimony in such marriages. The court also noted that in one of the judgments by a full bench of the Bombay HC, the expression “illegitimate wife” had been used. Taking exception to this, the SC said, “calling the wife of a marriage declared as void as an illegitimate wife is very inappropriate. It affects the dignity of the concerned woman. Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court went to the extent of using the words ‘illegitimate wife’. Shockingly, in paragraph 24, the High Court described such a wife as a ‘faithful mistress’. It is pertinent to note that the High Court has not used similar adjectives in the case of husbands of void marriages.”
