Supreme Court Clarifies Alimony Rights in Void Marriages: Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur (2025)

Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 197

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a person whose marriage is legally declared void still claim alimony from their former spouse? This crucial question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur. The court examined the scope and applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to determine whether alimony can be granted in cases where a marriage has been declared void. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, clarifies the rights of spouses in void marriages regarding maintenance and alimony.

Case Background

The case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically concerning whether alimony can be granted when a marriage is declared void. The appellant-husband contested the right of the respondent-wife to claim maintenance in such a scenario.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to provide the legal context for the judgment:

• Section 5: This section outlines the conditions for a Hindu marriage. It states:

  “5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage. —A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: — (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party — (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty -one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;”

• Section 11: This section deals with void marriages, stating:

  “11. Void marriages. — Any marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5.”

• Section 24: This section discusses maintenance pendente lite (during litigation) and expenses of proceedings:

  “24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. —Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable: Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.”

• Section 25: This section addresses permanent alimony and maintenance:

  “25. Permanent alimony and maintenance. —(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent. (2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just. (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”

Arguments

Appellant-Husband’s Submissions:

• The counsel for the appellant-husband argued against the granting of alimony in void marriages, relying on several decisions that supported this view. He urged the Court to reconsider its previous stances in cases like Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, which supported the right to seek maintenance in void marriages.

• He contended that marriages declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are void ab initio (from the beginning) and do not legally exist. Therefore, a wife in such a marriage cannot be considered a spouse entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Act.

• The appellant’s counsel raised concerns about the implications of granting maintenance in cases of incestuous or bigamous marriages, questioning whether courts should have the power to grant maintenance in such scenarios.

• He cited a decision by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu s/o Raghuji Magar v. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar, arguing that an illegitimate wife cannot be equated to a divorced wife and, therefore, Section 25 should not apply to void marriages.

Respondent-Wife’s Submissions:

• The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-wife supported the decisions in Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga, asserting that the views taken in those cases were correct.

• She relied on Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, arguing that Section 25 is a special provision enacted for the benefit of women.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following questions:

1. Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent Court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the same Act?
2. Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the same Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision. Here’s a breakdown:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan [(1993) 3 SCC 406]: The Supreme Court reiterated its view that Section 25 empowers the court to grant permanent alimony or maintenance when marital status has been affected or disrupted by court intervention.
• Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga [(2005) 2 SCC 33]: The Supreme Court upheld its stance that the expression “at the time of passing of any decree” in Section 25 encompasses all types of decrees, including those declaring a marriage null and void under Section 11.
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr. [(1988) 1 SCC 530]: The Supreme Court clarified that this case, which dealt with Section 125 of the CrPC, operates in a different legal context and does not apply to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma [AIR 1999 AP 19]: The Supreme Court differed, noting that the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s view was based on Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is distinct from the rights created under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh [(2003) 1 HLR 100]: The Supreme Court rejected the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s narrow interpretation of “decree in proceedings” under the 1955 Act, finding it contrary to the view taken in Chand Dhawan.
• Bhausaheb @ Sandhu s/o Raghuji Magar v. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar [AIR 2004 Bom 283]: The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Bombay High Court’s use of terms like “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress,” deeming such language misogynistic and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The legal principles laid down in this case were deemed incorrect.
• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors [(2005) 3 SCC 636]: The Supreme Court clarified that this decision dealt with proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and did not apply to the interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur was influenced by several factors, which can be analyzed through sentiment analysis. The Court emphasized the need to prevent financial destitution of dependent spouses, the discretionary nature of granting alimony, and the importance of considering the conduct of the parties involved. The Court also weighed the constitutional right to a dignified life under Article 21, particularly for women in void marriages.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

The following flowchart illustrates the Supreme Court’s logical reasoning in addressing the issue of whether a spouse of a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

Key Takeaways

• Legal Right to Alimony: Spouses in void marriages have a legal right to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Discretionary Power of the Court: The court has the discretionary power to grant or deny alimony based on the specific facts of the case and the conduct of the parties.
• Protection Against Destitution: The judgment aims to protect financially dependent spouses from destitution, ensuring they have a means of support even if the marriage is void.
• Dignified Life: The Supreme Court emphasized that denying alimony based on the nature of the marriage would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a dignified life.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, applies to void marriages, ensuring that dependent spouses are not left without recourse to maintenance. This decision reinforces the discretionary power of the court to consider the unique circumstances of each case, balancing the need to prevent financial destitution with considerations of equity and conduct.

Conclusion

In Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur, the Supreme Court of India held that a spouse of a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court clarified that this entitlement is subject to the court’s discretion and depends on the specific facts and conduct of the parties involved. This judgment ensures that dependent spouses are not left without financial support, upholding their right to a dignified life as enshrined in the Constitution.

Category

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Alimony
  • Maintenance
  • Void Marriage
  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Supreme Court Judgments
• Family Law
  • Marriage
  • Divorce
  • Alimony
  • Maintenance
  • Void Marriage
  • Hindu Law

FAQ

1. Q: Can I claim alimony if my marriage is declared void?

   A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, you are entitled to claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even if your marriage is declared void. However, the court will consider the facts of your case and the conduct of both parties to decide whether to grant alimony.

2. Q: What factors does the court consider when deciding whether to grant alimony in a void marriage?

   A: The court considers several factors, including the income and property of both spouses, the conduct of the parties, and other circumstances of the case. The decision to grant alimony is discretionary and depends on the specific details of each case.

3. Q: What is the difference between a void and voidable marriage?

   A: A void marriage is one that is invalid from the beginning and does not require a formal annulment. A voidable marriage is valid unless annulled by a court due to certain legal defects, such as lack of consent or fraud.

4. Q: Does this judgment affect my right to claim maintenance during the court proceedings?

   A: Yes, even if the court believes that your marriage is void or voidable, you can still claim maintenance pendente lite (during the proceedings) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided you meet the conditions specified in that section.