The Supreme Court ruled that referring to a woman in a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife” is misogynistic and inappropriate. The bench emphasized that such language undermines her dignity and is legally incorrect. The court stressed the importance of respectful terminology in legal matters. This judgment reinforces the need to uphold women’s rights and dignity in all circumstances.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized a Bombay High Court ruling that referred to a woman as an “illegitimate wife” and a “faithful mistress,” labelling such language as a violation of her fundamental rights and inherently misogynistic.
A full bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, noted that the use of these terms contradicted the principles of the Constitution.
Also Read: Wife Holds Lifetime Rights to Property, Including Income of Husband: Delhi HC
The court remarked,
“Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court went to the extent of using the words ‘illegitimate wife’. Shockingly, in paragraph 24, the high court described such a wife as a ‘faithful mistress’.”
The Justices stated that,
“Referring to a woman in a void marriage as an illegitimate wife is very inappropriate and undermines her dignity.”
They also highlighted that the high court did not apply similar modifiers to husbands in void marriages.
Under Section 21 of the Constitution, the court emphasized that every individual has the fundamental right to live with dignity.
It asserted,
“Calling a woman an ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Supreme Court was addressing conflicting interpretations regarding the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 24 pertains to maintenance pending litigation, while Section 25 deals with permanent alimony.
Also Read: Bombay HC: Filing False Cases Against Husband Constitutes Cruelty by Wife
The bench concluded that a spouse whose marriage is declared void under Section 11 of the Act can seek permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25. They noted that the decision to grant such relief is discretionary and contingent on the facts of each case.
Furthermore, the court stated that even if a marriage is deemed void or voidable, courts could still grant maintenance pending litigation if the conditions of Section 24 are met. The Justices directed the Supreme Court registry to present the appeals to the appropriate bench for a merits-based decision.
Case Title: Sukhdev Singh vs Sukhbir Kaur
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
