Chand Diwan v. Jawaharlal Diwan, (1993) 3 SCC 406 squarely covers point.

We find no ground to disbelieve, fact of her previous marriage was not concealed from her present husband. A bigamous marriage may be declared illegal. But, it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependant.

– Hon’ble Judges D.M. Dharmadhikari and H.K. Sema, Rameshchandra v. Rameshwari, (2005) 2 SCC 33 decided on 13.12.2004.

This is a classic example of inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man. However desirable it may be, legislative intent being clearly reflected in Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no scope for introducing any artificial definition to include women not lawfully married in the expression ‘wife’. The application for claim of maintenance stands dismissed.

– Hon’ble Judges Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 decided on 10.03.2005.

Referred to Larger Bench.

– Hon’ble Judges Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale, Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaul, [Civil Appeal Nom 2536 of 2019] decided on 22.08.2024.

_____

Calling a woman an ‘illegitimate wife’ or a ‘faithful mistress’ will amount to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. It is against ethos and ideals of our Constitution. No one can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage. The use of such words is misogynistic.

An apprehension is, if Section 25 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also applies to void marriages, it will lead to a ridiculous result. Equitable considerations do apply when Court considers prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The conduct of parties must be considered.

A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance by invoking Section 25. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, [Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019] decided on 12.02.2025.