The Supreme Court stated that labeling a woman involved in a void marriage as an ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ is misogynistic and violates her basic rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that calling a woman involved in a void marriage an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” is disrespectful and violates her basic rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that a person in a marriage deemed void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) can request permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25. The judges needed to decide if alimony could be awarded in cases of void marriages. Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih stated, “Every individual has the fundamental right to live with dignity under Section 21 of the Constitution of India. Referring to a woman as an ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ violates her rights under Article 21. Such terms contradict the values of our Constitution. No one should use these labels for a woman in a void marriage… This language is misogynistic.”
AOR Rajesh Aggarwal represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani represented the Respondent. The husband contested a previous ruling that allowed maintenance in a void marriage, while the wife sought to enforce her right to maintenance despite the marriage being annulled. The main issue for the Court was whether Section 25 of the HMA allows for permanent alimony and maintenance when a marriage is declared void. The Court also looked into whether a spouse could request interim maintenance under Section 24 during proceedings to declare a marriage void.
The Court examined the issue and noted that the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court introduced the term “illegitimate wife” in its ruling in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu v. Leelabai (2004). The Full Bench shockingly referred to such a wife as a “faithful mistress.” The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court did not use similar terms for husbands in void marriages. The Court stated that under Section 21 of the Constitution of India, everyone has the fundamental right to live with dignity. Referring to a wife in a void marriage as illegitimate is highly inappropriate and undermines her dignity. The Bench remarked that it is unfortunate to see such offensive language in a High Court judgment, calling it misogynistic. The law established by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court is clearly incorrect. Regarding maintenance, the Court ruled that even if a matrimonial Court finds a marriage to be void or voidable, it can still grant maintenance pendente lite if certain conditions are met.
The Bench clarified that the remedy under Section 25 of the HMA is distinct from that under Section 125 of the CrPC. It allows spouses of a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act to claim maintenance from each other. This remedy is available to both husbands and wives. A spouse whose marriage is declared void under Section 11 can seek permanent alimony or maintenance through Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether this relief is granted depends on the specific facts of each case and the behavior of the parties involved. The decision to grant relief under Section 25 is always at the Court’s discretion.
The Court ordered that the case be presented to the right Bench for a decision based on its merits. As a result, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 197)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajesh Aggarwal; Advocates Mridul Aggarwal, Akash Karanwal and Shubham Chandel
Respondent: Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani; AOR Naresh Kumar; Advocates Neeleshwar Pavani and Shaurya Mishra
