Calling woman 'illegitimate wife' or 'faithful mistress' misogynistic & violation of fundamental rights: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said calling a woman an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” is misogynistic and will amount to a violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Holding that a spouse in a void marriage is entitled to seek maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, a three-judge bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka took an exception to the use of the words by the Bombay High Court in its 2004 judgement.

Dealing with a reference, the bench noted the Bombay High Court's full judge bench in Bhausaheb alias Sandhu s/o Raghuji Magar Vs Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar (2004), has coined the term “illegitimate wife”.

"Calling the wife of a marriage declared as void as an illegitimate wife is very inappropriate. It affects the dignity of the concerned woman," it said.

The bench said, unfortunately, the Bombay High Court went to the extent of using the words “illegitimate wife”. Shockingly, the High Court described such a wife as a “faithful mistress”. It is pertinent to note that the High Court has not used similar adjectives in the case of husbands of void marriages, it pointed out.

"Under Article 21 of the Constitution, every person has a fundamental right to lead a dignified life," the bench said.

The bench opined 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. The law laid by the full bench of the Bombay High Court is obviously not correct," the bench said.

In its judgment, the court held that a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the Act.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, said, that whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties, as the grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary.

"Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied," the bench said.

While deciding the plea for interim relief under Section 24, the court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary, the bench added.

The court's judgment came on a reference by a two-judge bench on August 22, 2024 as there were conflicting views on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whether alimony can be granted where marriage has been declared void. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani appeared for the respondent woman in the matter.