Supreme Court to Decide on Alimony in Cases of Void Marriages Under Hindu Marriage Act

Last Updated on August 28, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh

The Supreme Court of India is set to resolve whether alimony under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) can be granted in cases where a marriage has been declared void. This question arises from a series of conflicting judgments on the issue, prompting a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale to refer the matter to a larger bench. The Court instructed the registry to place the issue before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for appropriate orders, acknowledging the need for a three-judge bench to deliberate on the matter.

Section 24 of the HMA allows for interim maintenance during ongoing litigation between a husband and wife, while Section 25 provides for permanent alimony and maintenance upon a spouse’s application. However, Section 11 of the HMA states that any marriage involving bigamy, prohibited relationships, or sapindas (blood relations within certain degrees of kinship) must be declared null and void.

The crux of the issue lies in whether alimony can be awarded if a marriage is declared void under Section 11. The Court has been informed of various conflicting decisions regarding this question. Some decisions, such as Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988), Abbayolla Reddy v. Padmamma (1999), Navdeep Kaur v. Dilraj Singh (2003), Bhausaheb @ Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar v. Leelabai W/o Bhausaheb Magar (2004), and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005), supported the grant of alimony in such cases. Conversely, other rulings, including Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005), opposed it.

To address these conflicting interpretations, the matter will now be adjudicated by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Advocates Rajesh Aggarwal, Mridul Aggarwal, Akash Karanwal, Shubham Chandel, and Amrender Ray represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, along with advocates Naresh Kumar, Neeleshwar Pavani, and Shaurya Mishra, represented the respondent.