Calling A Woman Who’s A Party To A Void Marriage An ‘Illegitimate Wife’ Or ‘Faithful Mistress’ Is Misogynistic; Violative Of Her Fundamental Rights: SC
|The Supreme Court held that a spouse to a void marriage under Section 11 of the HMA is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance.
The Supreme Court has held that referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” is misogynistic and violative of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held that a spouse to a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25. The Bench had to determine whether alimony can be granted in cases where a marriage is declared void.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “Under Section 21 of the Constitution of India, every person has a fundamental right to lead a dignified life. Calling a woman an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Describing a woman by using these words is against the ethos and ideals of our Constitution. No one can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage…The use of such words is misogynistic.”
AOR Rajesh Aggarwal represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The husband challenged an earlier decision that allowed maintenance in a void marriage, while the wife sought enforcement of her right to maintenance despite the marriage being nullified.
The key question before the Court was whether Section 25 of the HMA permits a Court to grant permanent alimony and maintenance when a marriage has been declared void. Additionally, the Court examined whether a spouse could seek interim maintenance under Section 24 in proceedings to declare a marriage void.
Court’s Reasoning
While delving into the issue, the Court pointed out that the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court coined the term “illegitimate wife” in its Judgment in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu v. Leelabai (2004). The Full Bench “shockingly” described such a wife as a “faithful mistress”.
The Supreme Court pointed out that “it is pertinent to note that the High Court has not used similar adjectives in the case of husbands of void marriages.”
The Court held that “Under Section 21 of the Constitution of India, every person has a fundamental right to lead a dignified life…Calling the wife of a marriage declared as void as an illegitimate wife is very inappropriate. It affects the dignity of the concerned woman.”
Further, the Bench held, “Unfortunately, we find that such objectionable language is used in a judgment of the Full Bench of a High Court. The use of such words is misogynistic. The law laid by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court is obviously not correct.”
On the issue of grant of maintenance, the Court held that 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 Bench explained that the remedy under Section 25 of the HMA is completely different from the remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC. “It confers rights on the spouses of the marriage declared as void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act to claim maintenance from the other spouse. The remedy is available to both husband and wife,” it explained.
“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,” it held.
Consequently, the Court directed the matter to be placed before the appropriate Bench for a decision on merits.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 197)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajesh Aggarwal; Advocates Mridul Aggarwal, Akash Karanwal and Shubham Chandel
Respondent: Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani; AOR Naresh Kumar; Advocates Neeleshwar Pavani and Shaurya Mishra