Permanent Alimony & Maintenance U/S 25 HMA Can Be Granted Even If Marriage Has Been Declared Void: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that entitlement to the relief under Section 25 of the HMA does not depend on whether the bigamous marriage is moral or immoral.
The Supreme Court has held a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the HMA is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the HMA.
Similarly, the Court held that even if a Court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, it is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) are satisfied.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “The remedy under Section 25 of the 1955 Act 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. The principles which apply to Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be applied to Section 25 of the 1955 Act. The relief under Section 125 of the CrPC can be granted to wife or child and not to husband.”
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
The Supreme 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.
“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,” it stated.
The Court also emphasised that entitlement to the relief under Section 25 of the HMA does not depend on whether the bigamous marriage is moral or immoral. “If a decree of nullity is covered by Section 25, the issue of whether a bigamous marriage is immoral is irrelevant,” 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
