Wife entitled to Alimony after marriage annulment, Punjab and Haryana HC [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has ruled that a woman would be entitled to permanent alimony from her former husband, even after the marriage has been annulled under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955..The Bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Harnaresh Singh Gill passed a ruling to this effect earlier this month, relying on the Supreme Court’s 1993 judgment in Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga. The High Court held,.“There was a specific issue raised before the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra) which has been decided in favour of the respondent-wife therein holding that though the marriage has been declared as illegal, null and void …. she would be entitled to maintenance and permanent alimony (lump-sum) in terms of Section 25 of the Act.”.In the case before the High Court, the couple had been married in 2012. No child had been born out of wedlock. The woman had claimed to be a spinster at the time of marriage. However, upon the husband coming to know that she was already married to another, he applied for divorce..The marriage was subsequently declared null and void by the trial court invoking Section 11 read with Section 5 (i) (annulment on the ground of bigamy) of the Hindu Marriage Act. All the same, the trial court ordered the husband to pay alimony to the wife. Aggrieved by the verdict, the husband moved the High Court contending that once a marriage has been annulled, there is no obligation left to pay alimony..Ramesh Chandra’s case also involved the annulment of a marriage on the ground of bigamy. The husband in this case already had three children out of his first marriage. He decided to marry a second time after his first wife’s death. The second wife was already married once before. She did not complete court proceedings to obtain a divorce for this first marriage. However, a customary document recording dissolution of her first marriage was executed and registered. A child was born out of the second marriage, although its parentage was later disputed by the husband..After matrimonial disputes emerged, the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Chandra’s case eventually found that the marriage was null and void on the ground of bigamy. However, the husband was nevertheless ordered to pay alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court, which observed,.“Section 25 is an enabling provision. It empowers the Court in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant permanent alimony or maintenance.”.Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance. It states that the Court can grant alimony in matrimonial disputes, “exercising jurisdiction under this Act, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto.” These statutory terms were liberally construed by the Supreme Court as follows,.“... In our considered opinion, as has been held by this Court in Chand Dhawan’s case (supra), the expression used in the opening part of Section 25 enabling the ‘Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act’ ‘at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto’ to grant alimony or maintenance cannot be restricted only to, as contended, decree of judicial separation under Section 10 or divorce under Section 13. .When the legislature has used such wide expression as ‘at the time of passing of any decree,’ it encompasses within the expression all kinds of decrees such as restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, declaring marriage as null and void under Section 11, annulment of marriage as voidable under Section 12 and Divorce under Section 13.'”.This decision was found to be the appropriate binding precedent in the instant case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well. Therefore, the Bench ruled in the wife’s favour, holding,.“… we are of the considered opinion that the present case is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra’s case (supra) and thus, the present appeal is hereby allowed only to the extent that the question of law which has been framed by us holding that the appellant would be entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act dehors the fact that the decree has been passed under Section 11 of the Act.“.The matter was remanded back to the trial court to determine the amount of alimony payable, depending on the facts and circumstances presented to the court..Advocate Anil Chawla appeared for the appellant/husband in the case, whereas Advocate Veneet Sharma represented the respondent/wife..Read the Judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.