Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers a right to maintenance on parties to a void marriage, even though they do not enjoy the status of a husband and wife in the strict legal sense. The words "wife" and "husband" used in section 25 should be construed liberally to include a man and a woman professing the Hindu faith who have gone through a ceremony of marriage which would have conferred the status of a wife or husband on them but for the provisions of section 11 read with clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Act.

Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 25 - MAINTENANCE - NULL AND VOID MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION OF WORDS "WIFE" AND "HUSBAND" - RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - CONDITIONS - APPLICABILITY TO PARTIES TO VOID MARRIAGE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Hindu male, married respondent No. 2 in 1934. In 1959, he went through a ceremony of marriage with respondent No. 1, while respondent No. 2 was still alive and the marriage between them was subsisting. Respondent No. 1 filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a declaration of nullity of the marriage and for maintenance. The trial court and the appellate court granted her a decree of nullity and awarded her permanent alimony.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers a right to maintenance on parties to a void marriage, even though they do not enjoy the status of a husband and wife in the strict legal sense. The court interpreted the words "wife" and "husband" used in section 25 liberally to include a man and a woman professing the Hindu faith who have gone through a ceremony of marriage which would have conferred the status of a wife or husband on them but for the provisions of section 11 read with clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers a right to maintenance on parties to a void marriage? 2. Whether the words "wife" and "husband" used in section 25 should be construed strictly or liberally?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers a right to maintenance on parties to a void marriage, even though they do not enjoy the status of a husband and wife in the strict legal sense. The court reasoned that the plain language of the provision shows that it creates a corresponding right in the wife or the husband to get maintenance provided the conditions laid down for the grant of the same are satisfied. 2. The court held that the words "wife" and "husband" used in section 25 should be construed liberally to include a man and a woman professing the Hindu faith who have gone through a ceremony of marriage which would have conferred the status of a wife or husband on them but for the provisions of section 11 read with clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Act. The court reasoned that a strict interpretation would lead to absurd results and would defeat the object of the legislation, which was to provide relief to parties to void marriages.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower courts granting respondent No. 1 a decree of nullity and awarding her permanent alimony.

JUDGMENT -This is an appeal by the husband, who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Very few facts are necessary for appreciation of the controversy arising in the appeal. Both the principal parties viz. the appellant and respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No.2, are Hindus governed by the Hindu Law. In 1934 the appellant was married to respondent No.2 according to Hindu rites and they lived as husband and wife. The appellant did not have any child by respondent No.2. On 24th May 1959 the appellant went through a ceremony of marriage according to Hindu rites with respondent No. 1. At the time when this ceremony was gone through by the parties, respondent No. 2 was alive and she is still alive; and the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 2 was subsisting then and is still subsisting. There is no dispute at this stage that the facts found show that, in March 1963 the appellant and respondent No.2 drove away respondent No. 2 and since then she has been residing with her parents. The averments in the pleadings and the evidence on record show that respondent No. 1 continued for five or six years to live with her parents in the hope that she would be again taken back by the appellant. In 1969 respondent No.1 gave a notice to the appellant and demanded maintenance and thereafter filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 204 of 1970, in forma pauperis for maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"). The appellant resisted the suit and, inter alia, disputed the factum of marriage and status of respondent No. 1 as his wife and contended that the marriage between them being void she was not entitled to any maintenance under that Act. Sometime in 1972 the appellant adopted a son and thereafter, on 11th December 1972, respondent No., 1 tiled a petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 17 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, for a declaration that the marriage between her and the appellant was null and void and for maintenance at the rate of Rs.150 p.m. The appellant resisted the claim for maintenance made in this petition on the ground that the marriage purported to have been performed between him and respondent No. 1 was void as at the time when the said marriage was performed, respondent No.2, who was his spouse, was living and contended that, in view of this, respondent No.1 could not be said to be his wife and was not entitled to any maintenance. He also contended that the petition was barred by limitation.

2. The learned Civil Judge held that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was null and void as contravening the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. He further held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 125 p.m. He rejected the contention of the appellant that respondent No. 1 had disentitled herself to relief on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In view of this petition having been allowed the learned Civil Judge dismissed the aforesaid Suit No. 204 of 1970. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid petition, the appellant preferred an appeal in the District Court at Kolhapur being Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1973. This appeal was disposed of by the learned Assistant Judge, Kolhapur, who confirmed the decree and order passed by the learned trial Judge with a slight modification with which I am not concerned in this appeal. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment of the learned Assistant Judge.

3. As the arguments in this appeal turn, to a large extent, on some of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, which came into force on 18th May 1955, it may not be out of place to take notice of the same at this stage. Section 11 of this Act runs as follows :

"Any marriage solemnized after

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1976 Supreme(Bom) 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY( M. H. Kania J.) GOVINDRAO RANOJI MUSALE - Appellant. v. ANANDIBAI GOVINDRAO MUSALE and another - Respondents. Advocates AppearedFor appellant - M. L. Pendse. For respondent No. 1- K. J. Abhyankar.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
( M. H. Kania J.)
GOVINDRAO RANOJI MUSALE - Appellant.
v.
ANANDIBAI GOVINDRAO MUSALE and another - Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
For appellant - M. L. Pendse.
For respondent No. 1- K. J. Abhyankar.