Answering a reference made by a two-judge bench in August 2024, the Supreme Court docket Wednesday dominated that interim upkeep and everlasting alimony will be claimed by both of the events even in a wedding declared void beneath the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955.
The highest court docket additionally took exception to the expression “illegitimate spouse” or “trustworthy mistress” utilized by the Bombay HC in one among its judgments, and stated “the usage of such phrases is misogynistic” and “very inappropriate”.
A bench of Justices A S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih stated, “A partner whose marriage has been declared void beneath Part 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to hunt everlasting alimony or upkeep from the opposite partner by invoking Part 25 of the 1955 Act.”
The highest court docket, nevertheless, added, “whether or not such a reduction of everlasting alimony will be granted or not at all times is determined by the info of every case and conduct of the events. The grant of reduction beneath Part 25 is at all times discretionary.”
On the query of grant of interim upkeep beneath the Hindu Marriage Act, the judgement stated, “even when a court docket involves a prima facie conclusion that the wedding between the events is void or voidable, pending the ultimate disposal of the continuing beneath the 1955 Act, the court docket isn’t precluded from granting upkeep pendente lite supplied the situations talked about in Part 24 are happy.”
It added that “whereas deciding the prayer for interim reduction beneath Part 24, the court docket will at all times take into accounts the conduct of the occasion searching for the reduction, because the grant of reduction beneath Part 24 is at all times discretionary.”
The reference arose from conflicting selections for and towards grant of alimony in such marriages.
Story continues under this advert
The court docket additionally famous that in one of many judgments by a full bench of the Bombay HC, the expression “illegitimate spouse” had been used.
Taking exception to this, the SC stated, “calling the spouse of a wedding declared as void as an illegitimate spouse could be very inappropriate. It impacts the dignity of the involved girl. Sadly, the Bombay Excessive Court docket went to the extent of utilizing the phrases ‘illegitimate spouse’. Shockingly, in paragraph 24, the Excessive Court docket described such a spouse as a ‘trustworthy mistress’. It’s pertinent to notice that the Excessive Court docket has not used comparable adjectives within the case of husbands of void marriages.”
© The Indian Specific Pvt Ltd
