The Allahabad High Court held that a wife’s right to claim maintenance cannot be denied merely because the marriage is one that “could” be annulled, unless there is a decree of nullity declaring it void. Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that until a voidable marriage is formally annulled by a court decree, the woman maintains her status as a legally wedded wife, and is entitled to all rights flowing from that status, including maintenance.
In the case before the Court, the wife (referred to as the revisionist) had challenged an order of the Family Court which denied her maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court had found that she was not entitled to maintenance because, it held, she was living separately due to concealment by her husband of his earlier marriage and divorce. The Family Court further invoked Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with voidable marriages, concluding that since the marriage could be declared void on grounds of fraud (in concealing prior marital history), the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
On appeal, the High Court rejected this reasoning. It held that a mere suggestion that the marriage might be annulled in future does not ipso facto disentitle the wife from maintenance while the marriage remains legally subsisting. The High Court emphasized that in the absence of any proceedings before a court for a decree of nullity, the marriage must be treated as continuing, and the wife retains her legal status and the attendant rights. The Court stated that the earlier decision of the Family Court rested on the incorrect assumption of the applicability of Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the absence of a nullity decree.
Justice Shukla pointed out that neither party had initiated proceedings to seek a declaration that the marriage was void, and that no decree of nullity had been passed. Consequently, until such judicial determination is made, the wife–revisionist continues to be the lawful spouse of her husband and cannot be denied maintenance on the basis that the marriage is voidable merely in theory. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of the Family Court and remanded the matter back to it for reconsideration, directing the Family Court to pass fresh orders in light of the correct legal position.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.