Supreme Court Clarifies Right to Maintenance in Void Marriages

1. Introduction

In the landmark case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 INSC 197), the Supreme Court of India addressed a pivotal question under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“1955 Act”): whether a spouse from a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim alimony or maintenance under Sections 24 and 25 of the same Act. The case was referred to a three-judge bench due to conflicting precedents regarding the applicability of alimony and maintenance provisions to void marriages.

The appellant-husband, Sukhdev Singh (“Appellant”), and the respondent-wife, Sukhbir Kaur (“Respondent”), present a scenario in which the validity of their marriage came into question. The Supreme Court was tasked with reconciling divergent interpretations from several High Courts and prior Supreme Court decisions as to whether the statutory right to maintenance and alimony survives when a marriage is legally deemed to have never existed (“void ab initio”).

At issue was:

• Whether a spouse in a void marriage could seek both interim and permanent maintenance under Sections 24 and 25 of the 1955 Act.
• How courts should interpret “any decree” in Section 25 regarding marriages declared void under Section 11.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court clarified that spouses to void marriages can indeed claim maintenance, offering a definitive resolution to the conflicting authorities governing matrimonial relief in such cases.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Delivering its decision, the Court held that:

• A spouse from a marriage declared void (meaning void ab initio) under Section 11 of the 1955 Act has the right to seek maintenance and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act.
• Similarly, pending a judicial declaration of nullity, a court has the authority to grant maintenance pendente lite under Section 24, provided the conditions under that section are met.
• The Court stressed that while such relief is available to spouses of void marriages, it remains discretionary. Conduct of the parties, including any concealment or wrongdoing, will be material in deciding whether or not to grant maintenance or alimony.
• The Court rejected judgments suggesting that a spouse in a void marriage cannot be granted alimony or maintenance, emphasizing that legal relief should be available to prevent financial destitution and to respect the dignity of individuals involved.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Several prior judgments formed the backdrop of the conflicting views on alimony in void marriages:

• Judgments in favor of granting alimony:
  • Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406
  • Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33
• Judgments against granting alimony:
  • Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Another (1988) 1 SCC 530
  • Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma AIR 1999 AP 19
  • Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh (2003) 1 HLR 100
  • Bhausaheb @ Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar v. Leelabai W/o Bhausaheb Magar (2004) AIR Bom. 283 (FB)
  • Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State Of Gujarat & Others (2005) 3 SCC 636

The Supreme Court significantly relied on the reasoning in Chand Dhawan and Rameshchandra Daga, both of which endorsed the view that “any decree” in Section 25 includes a decree of nullity under Section 11 of the 1955 Act. In contrast, the Court also examined the authorities discouraging the award of alimony in void marriages—particularly the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu—and ultimately found those views untenable.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Central to the Court’s conclusion was the statutory interpretation of Sections 24 and 25 in conjunction with Sections 11 and 23 of the 1955 Act:

1. Scope of “Any Decree” under Section 25: The Judgment underscores that the phrase “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto” necessarily encompasses all forms of matrimonial decrees under the Act, including those for void marriages, voidable marriages, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, and divorce. The Court rejected any reading of Section 25 that would exclude decrees of nullity.
2. Discretionary Nature of Maintenance Relief: Both Section 24 (interim maintenance) and Section 25 (permanent alimony) employ the term “may,” indicating discretionary judicial power. Courts must evaluate each case on its merits, including the conduct of the spouse seeking maintenance. Therefore, while spouses to a void marriage can apply for maintenance, they may or may not be granted relief depending on equitable considerations.
3. Difference from Section 125 of CrPC: Much of the confusion arose from precedents dealing with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides a summary remedy for financially dependent wives, children, and parents. The Court clarified that Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 25 of the 1955 Act operate in entirely different domains. In contrast to the limited and summary nature of Section 125 CrPC remedies, Section 25 of the 1955 Act provides a substantive right to maintenance or alimony connected to the status and parties’ conduct under the matrimonial framework.
4. Protection of Dignity: The Court rejected demeaning language, such as “illegitimate wife,” that had occasionally appeared in prior High Court judgments. It emphasized the constitutional imperative to preserve individual dignity, concluding that no woman can be referred to by derogatory terms even when a marriage is found void.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases and the Relevant Area of Law

By deciding that “any decree” in Section 25 includes decrees of nullity, the Supreme Court has expanded and clarified legal protection for individuals who discover, ex post facto, that they were party to a marriage void ab initio. Key consequences include:

• Reinforcement of Women’s Rights: This ruling prevents women who believed themselves to be lawfully wedded, but whose marriage is later declared void, from losing financial support. It acknowledges that such spouses have a legitimate interest in avoiding destitution.
• Judicial Guidance: Lower courts now have firm authority to consider granting maintenance even in contested cases involving void marriages. The potential for discretionary relief can be factored into litigation strategies and settlement negotiations, enhancing predictability in matrimonial litigation.
• Uniformity Among High Courts: The Supreme Court has effectively harmonized the approach to Section 25, resolving conflict among various High Court rulings. Lawyers and litigants benefit from a univocal interpretation, reducing unnecessary appeals.

Going forward, parties will need to be mindful of how moral considerations, knowledge or concealment of an existing spouse, or other relevant conduct-based factors could affect a court’s assessment of alimony eligibility.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Void Marriage (Section 11): A marriage that contravenes certain conditions in Section 5 of the 1955 Act, such as bigamy or prohibited degrees of relationship, is legally treated as though it never existed. Nonetheless, the law allows for a formal decree declaring its nullity.

Maintenance Pendente Lite (Section 24): Pending final adjudication in matrimonial proceedings, a spouse without sufficient means can request the other spouse to provide financial support for living expenses and litigation costs. This ensures economic fairness during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Permanent Alimony and Maintenance (Section 25): Upon issuance of a “decree” (e.g., divorce, nullity, judicial separation, etc.), the court may, on an application, order a lump-sum or periodic payments to support a financially weaker spouse, taking into account the party’s conduct, financial capacity, and broader equitable considerations.

5. Conclusion

In Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 INSC 197), the Supreme Court laid down a clear, unified principle regarding maintenance rights under Sections 24 and 25 of the 1955 Act. Even where a marriage is declared void, both spouses retain the right to seek financial support from the other, subject to an equitable and discretionary evaluation by the court.

The Judgment marks a significant step in harmonizing conflicting legal authorities and safeguarding the dignity and economic security of parties to void marriages. It underscores that statutory provisions for maintenance and alimony should be interpreted broadly to prevent injustice and to ensure that, while the marriage may be void in law, one spouse is not left destitute when the other has the financial means to provide support. The ruling stands as a vital precedent for future matrimonial disputes, promoting fairness, gender justice, and respect for individual dignity across India’s legal landscape.