‘Illegitimate wife, faithful mistress’: SC rap for Bombay HC over misogynistic labels used in alimony case order
A three-judge bench delivered the ruling while answering a reference made by a two-judge bench last year.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday castigated the Bombay high court for using the terms “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress” to describe a woman whose marriage had been annulled due to legal invalidity, calling such language “misogynistic” and an affront to dignity and constitutional ethos.
The top court also settled a critical legal question, ruling that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, is entitled to seek permanent alimony and interim maintenance from the other spouse.
A three-judge bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the ruling while answering a reference made by a two-judge bench last year. The reference arose due to conflicting Supreme Court decisions on whether maintenance and alimony could be granted when a marriage is void under the HMA.
The judgment expressed deep dismay at the language used in a 2004 judgment by a full bench of the Bombay high court, which had described a woman from a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife” and a “faithful mistress” while dealing with a similar dispute and ultimately deciding against granting alimony. The apex court held that such terms are not only inappropriate but also violate the woman’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Calling the wife of a marriage declared as void as an illegitimate wife is very inappropriate. It affects the dignity of the concerned woman. Unfortunately, the Bombay high court went to the extent of using the words ‘illegitimate wife’. Shockingly, in paragraph 24 (of the judgment), the high court described such a wife as a ‘faithful mistress’,” lamented the bench.
Pointing out that similar terms were never used to describe men in void marriages, the court emphasised that every individual has a fundamental right to dignity, and such terminology is deeply problematic and misogynistic.
“Describing a woman by using these words is against the 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. Unfortunately, we find that such objectionable language is used in a judgment of the full bench of a high court. The use of such words is misogynistic,” maintained the judgment, penned by justice Oka.
The court’s strong stand against the use of misogynistic language in judicial pronouncements reinforces the need for sensitivity and gender-neutral language in legal discourse. In August 2023, the Supreme Court released a “Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes” as a guide to judges and lawyers about obsolete terms, particularly pertaining to gender, that should be avoided in judicial discourse.
The judgment on Wednesday set aside the view taken by the Bombay high court, declaring that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the Act, depending on the facts of each case. Section 11 is invoked for instances of bigamy, prohibited relationships and sapinda (close kin) marriages.
At the core of the ruling was the interpretation of Section 25 of the HMA, which allows a court to grant permanent alimony “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto.” The apex court noted that the term “any decree” under Section 25 includes decrees declaring a marriage void.
Additionally, the court ruled that even if a court if of prima facie view that a marriage is void or voidable, a spouse can still seek interim maintenance while proceedings are pending, provided they lack sufficient income. The bench noted that granting maintenance is discretionary, and courts must consider the conduct of the parties while awarding such relief.
Acknowledging concerns raised by the opposing party that allowing maintenance in void marriages might lead to misuse, such as situations where a person induces another into an illegal marriage, the Supreme bench clarified that courts have discretion while granting alimony. “If the conduct of the spouse applying for maintenance is such that relief is not justified, the court can refuse to grant it,” it held.
To be sure, the ruling is applicable to both men and women even as it ensures that individuals, particularly women, who find themselves in legally void marriages are not left without financial recourse