Permanent Alimony and Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted in Void Marriages Under Hindu Marriage Act : Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur has held that permanent alimony and interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) can be granted even when a marriage has been declared void.
The Court clarified that 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 Act. However, the grant of such relief is always dependent on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The Court emphasized that the relief under Section 25 is discretionary in nature.
Regarding the grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, the Court observed that even if a court prima facie concludes that a marriage is void or voidable, it is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite until the final disposal of proceedings under the Act, provided the conditions stipulated in Section 24 are met. While considering such relief, the conduct of the party seeking maintenance remains a crucial factor, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is also discretionary.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih in response to a reference made by a two-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. The reference was necessitated due to conflicting Supreme Court decisions on whether permanent alimony or maintenance can be awarded to a spouse even after a marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the HMA.
The case centered around the interpretation of Section 25 of the HMA, which grants discretionary powers to family courts to award permanent alimony upon passing of "any decree" under the Act. The Husband/Appellant argued that the term "any decree" should not include decrees declaring a marriage void, contending that a void marriage is legally non-existent, and therefore, no spouse should be entitled to relief under Section 25.
For clarity, under Section 11 of the HMA, a marriage is declared void if it involves bigamy, spouses within prohibited degrees of relationship, or parties who are sapinda of each other under Section 5 of the Act.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument, the judgment authored by Justice Oka affirmed that a "decree of nullity" declaring a marriage void still qualifies as a decree under Section 25 of the HMA, thereby allowing claims for permanent alimony. The Court stated:
"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."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court answered the reference by affirming that permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted even in cases where a marriage has been declared void.