In an important judgment delivered on February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a spouse from a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), can still seek permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of the same Act. The verdict, given by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, ensures that even if a marriage is legally invalid, the dependent spouse is not left without financial support. This ruling is crucial in protecting individuals especially women who may find themselves financially vulnerable after their marriage is declared void. The Court also clarified that during the legal process of declaring a marriage void, a spouse can claim interim maintenance (temporary financial support) under Section 24 of the HMA, if they meet the necessary conditions. This means that while a case is ongoing, the financially weaker spouse can request support to meet their daily expenses. The judgment further distinguished Section 25 of the HMA from Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), stating that while Section 125 CrPC provides maintenance only to wives and children, Section 25 of HMA allows both husband and wife to seek maintenance in case of a void marriage. This ensures a broader and more balanced approach to financial support in marital disputes. This blog covers the Supreme Court’s ruling that spouses in void marriages can still claim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background of the Case in void marriages
In this case, a husband challenged a previous court decision that had granted maintenance (financial support) to his wife, even though their marriage was declared void (legally invalid). On the other hand, the wife argued that she was still entitled to financial support, despite the marriage being legally nullified.
The key legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a spouse in a void marriage could still claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Additionally, the Court also had to decide if a spouse could get temporary maintenance (pendente lite) under Section 24 of the HMA while the case to declare the marriage void was still ongoing.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of the wife, stating that even if a marriage is declared invalid, the financially weaker spouse can still claim maintenance under Section 25 of the HMA. The Court also confirmed that temporary financial support under Section 24 can be granted while the case is in progress. This decision was made to ensure that individuals are not left without financial support, even in cases where their marriage is legally void.
Sections Used by the Supreme Court in Alimony & Maintenance
The Supreme Court referred to three key sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and one section from the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to decide this case. Below is a simple explanation of each:
Section 11 of HMA – Void Marriages
- This section states that if a marriage is legally invalid (void) due to reasons like bigamy (one spouse already married) or prohibited relationships, it has no legal status.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that even if a marriage is declared void under this section, a spouse can still ask for financial support under Section 25.
Section 25 of HMA – Permanent Alimony & Maintenance
- This section allows the Court to grant permanent financial support to a spouse after divorce or when a marriage is declared void or voidable.
- The Supreme Court ruled that even if a marriage is nullified under Section 11, the affected spouse can still request maintenance from their partner under Section 25.
Section 24 of HMA – Interim (Temporary) Maintenance
- This section allows a financially weaker spouse to request temporary financial support (pendente lite) while a divorce or void marriage case is ongoing.
- The Supreme Court clarified that even if a marriage is being challenged as void, the Court can still grant temporary maintenance under this section if needed.
Section 125 of CrPC – Maintenance for Wives & Children
- This section provides financial support for wives, children, and dependent parents in cases of neglect or abandonment.
- The Supreme Court explained that Section 125 of CrPC is different from Section 25 of HMA because CrPC maintenance applies only to wives and children, whereas HMA maintenance applies to both spouses in void marriages.
How These Sections Were Used in This Case
- The husband argued that since the marriage was void under Section 11, his wife should not receive maintenance.
- The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 25, a spouse can still claim financial support even if the marriage is declared void.
- The Court also confirmed that a spouse can get temporary maintenance under Section 24 while the case is in progress.
- The Court made it clear that Section 125 of CrPC does not apply in such cases, as HMA provides a separate legal remedy for maintenance.
This ruling ensures that spouses in void marriages are not left without financial support, promoting fairness and justice.
Court’s Reasoning & Judges’ Remarks in void marriages
In this case, the Supreme Court carefully examined whether a spouse in a void marriage can still claim maintenance (financial support) under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Court provided clear reasoning and made important remarks to support its decision.
Marriage Being Void Does Not Cancel Maintenance Rights
- The Court ruled that even if a marriage is declared void under Section 11, the financially weaker spouse should not be left without support.
- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that Section 25 of HMA allows both husbands and wives to claim permanent maintenance, even if their marriage is not legally valid.
Section 25 Covers All Types of Marital Disputes
The judges explained that Section 25 of HMA does not make a distinction between:
- A marriage that ends in divorce and a marriage that is declared void
- Since the law does not exclude void marriages, the Court ruled that maintenance can still be granted under this section.
Temporary Maintenance Can Be Given During the Case
- The Court clarified that even if a marriage is being questioned, a spouse can still request temporary maintenance (pendente lite) under Section 24 of HMA.
- This helps the financially weaker spouse survive while the case is ongoing.
Section 25 is Different from Section 125 of CrPC
- The Court stated that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is for wives and children who are abandoned.
- Section 25 of HMA is broader because it allows both spouses (husband or wife) to seek maintenance.
Moral or Immoral Nature of Marriage Does Not Matter
- Some argued that bigamous marriages (where one partner is already married) are immoral and should not get legal protection.
- The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the morality of the marriage is irrelevant when deciding maintenance rights under Section 25 of HMA.
Maintenance is Not Automatic – It Depends on Facts
- The Court explained that just because someone applies for maintenance, it does not mean they will automatically get it. The final decision depends on:
- The specific circumstances of the case
- The conduct of both spouses
- Financial needs of the applicant
The Supreme Court’s Final Decision
- The Appeal was allowed, meaning the wife’s claim for maintenance was accepted.
- The case was sent back to a lower court to decide the exact amount of maintenance based on the facts.
Remarks of the Judges
The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih, made the following important remarks while delivering the judgment:
On Maintenance Rights in Void Marriages: “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.”
Explanation: The Court clarified that Section 25 of HMA gives both spouses in a void marriage the right to seek financial support, unlike Section 125 of CrPC, which only applies to wives and children.
On Granting Interim Maintenance: “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.”
Explanation: The Court ruled that a spouse can get temporary financial support under Section 24 of HMA, even while the case is still in progress.
On the Scope of Section 25: “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.”
Explanation: The Court emphasized that Section 25 of HMA applies to all marriage disputes, including divorces and void marriages, allowing spouses to seek permanent maintenance in either case.
On Morality and Maintenance Entitlement: “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.”
Explanation: The Court rejected the argument that bigamous marriages are immoral and should not be given legal protection. It ruled that moral judgment should not affect a spouse’s right to maintenance.
On Court’s Discretion in Granting Maintenance: “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 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.”
Explanation: The Court clarified that not every request for maintenance will be accepted automatically. The decision will depend on:
- The financial condition of both spouses
- The behavior and conduct of each spouse
- The specific facts of the case
Final Direction by the Court: “Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and directed the matter to be placed before the appropriate Bench for a decision on merits.”
Explanation: The Court ruled in favour of allowing maintenance and sent the case back to a lower court to decide the exact amount of financial support the wife should receive.
This judgment ensures that spouses in void marriages are not denied their legal right to financial support, making it an important precedent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case has far-reaching consequences for marital disputes, maintenance rights, and legal protections for spouses in void marriages. Below are the key implications:
Protection for Spouses in Void Marriages
- This judgment ensures that spouses in void marriages (invalid under Section 11 of HMA) are not left financially helpless.
- It particularly protects women, who are often financially dependent and may be abandoned after their marriage is declared void.
Clear Distinction Between HMA and CrPC Maintenance
- The ruling clarified that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) provides maintenance rights to both husbands and wives, whereas Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) only grants maintenance to wives and children.
- This prevents confusion and ensures that spouses in void marriages can claim financial support through the right legal provisions.
Temporary Maintenance Allowed Even During Disputes
- By allowing pendente lite (temporary) maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, the Court ensured that a financially weaker spouse can receive support even before a final decision on marriage validity is made.
- This prevents economic hardship for individuals caught in long legal battles over the validity of their marriage.
Reinforcement of Judicial Discretion in Maintenance Cases
- The Court made it clear that granting maintenance is not automatic and will depend on:
- The facts of each case
- The conduct of both spouses
- The financial situation of the applicant
- This ensures that maintenance is granted fairly and not misused.
Strengthening Women’s Rights & Social Justice
- This ruling is a progressive step toward women’s financial security, ensuring they are not abandoned in void marriages without any economic support.
- It aligns with India’s commitment to gender justice by ensuring financial protection for vulnerable spouses.
Impact on Future Legal Cases
- This judgment sets a strong precedent for future cases involving void marriages and maintenance claims.
- Courts across India will follow this ruling when deciding similar cases, ensuring uniformity in legal decisions.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens the legal rights of spouses in void marriages, ensuring that they do not suffer financially due to technicalities in marital laws. By allowing both permanent and temporary maintenance, the Court has taken an important step toward fairness and justice in family law.
