13 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Permanent Alimony & Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even When Marriage is Void Under Hindu Marriage Act: Supreme Court

Case- Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur

Date of Order- February 12, 2025

Bench- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a spouse whose marriage is declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is still entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse under Section 25 of the Act. The ruling was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih.

Key Points:

Conflict Resolution: The verdict clarifies conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the applicability of permanent alimony and interim maintenance in void marriages. The case, Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019), was referred to a larger bench due to these conflicting views.

Arguments Against Alimony: The appellant-husband argued that since their marriage was legally declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife was not entitled to maintenance. He contended that a marriage declared void is void from the beginning and doesn't exist, so a spouse cannot claim alimony under Section 25.

Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the husband's argument, asserting that a 'decree of nullity' declaring a marriage void still qualifies as a decree under Section 25 of the HMA, thus allowing a claim for permanent alimony. The court also noted that Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act makes no distinction between a divorce decree and a decree declaring a marriage null.

Conditions for Void Marriages: Under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriages are void if one or both parties have a living spouse at the time of marriage, if the parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship, or if they are "sapindas" of each other, unless their custom allows such a marriage.

Interim Maintenance: The court also held that even if a court initially believes a marriage is void or voidable, it can still grant maintenance during the litigation ("pendente lite") if the conditions in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are met. The court will consider the conduct of the party seeking relief, as granting relief under Section 24 is discretionary.

2. Order XXII Rule 4 CPC | No Separate Prayer to Set Aside Abatement Needed if Application to Substitute Legal Heirs Is Filed: Supreme Court

Case- Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) & Connected Matter

Date of Order- February 11, 2025

Bench- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice P.K. Mishra

The Supreme Court has ruled that if an appeal abates because of a failure to substitute legal heirs, filing a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) eliminates the need for a separate application to set aside the abatement. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra heard the case. The court observed that a prayer for setting aside the abatement can be inherent in a prayer for substitution, adopting a justice-oriented approach.

Key points:

High Court's Decision: The High Court had recalled the restoration of a second appeal, stating that it could not have been restored without a separate application to set aside the abatement. They declined to consider an application by the legal representatives (LRs) that notified the applicant's demise and provided heirs' details for substitution, insisting a separate application was necessary.

Supreme Court's Ruling: Setting aside the High Court's decision, Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, stated that a prayer to bring legal representatives on record can be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement.

Reference Case: The Supreme Court drew reference from Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691, where it was held that a simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement.

Implication: The Supreme Court held that although no application praying for setting aside of abatement was ever made by the appellants before the High Court, the prayer for setting aside of abatement can be read in a prayer for substitution. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

3. Article 226 | Writ Court Can Refuse Action Against Illegality to do Substantial Justice: Supreme Court

Case- M.S. Sanjay vs. Indian Bank & Ors.

Date of Order- January 29, 2025

Bench- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court reiterated that writ courts should not interfere in cases of mere violation of statutory provisions or norms unless injustice has occurred, emphasizing that the power of High Courts to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. Even if a challenged order is invalid, the High Court can refuse to interfere to do substantial justice between the parties.

Key Points:

Case Background: The appellant was the auction purchaser of a property mortgaged by a borrower who defaulted on a loan from a bank. The auction occurred in 2007, and the appellant was the successful bidder. The respondent guarantor challenged the auction's validity, not the borrower. The High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition, citing that the bank did not issue a 15-day notice for the auction, making it illegal.

Supreme Court's Observations: The Supreme Court held the respondent responsible for dragging the appellant into frivolous litigation over a technicality but refrained from imposing costs. The court noted that the auction was completed in 2007, a sale certificate was issued, and the guarantor only challenged the proceedings in 2008. The appellant had also invested about Rs. 1.5 Crore in further construction on the property.

High Court's Error: The Supreme Court stated that the High Court should have taken a practical view, considering the auction attained finality in 2007 but instead focused strictly on the number of days for the auction notice when hearing the Writ Petition in 2019.

Ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.

Writ Jurisdiction: The writ jurisdiction is conferred to the Supreme Court and High Courts through Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. The Supreme Court is considered the "guarantor" and "defender" of the fundamental rights of the citizens of India and has the power to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and prohibition. A writ is a command from a higher authority that directs an individual to perform or abstain from performing a certain act. A writ petition can be filed by any individual when their fundamental rights are infringed upon by the state.

Difference between Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Court: The Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcing Fundamental Rights, while High Courts have a wider scope to issue writs to enforce both fundamental as well as legal rights. The Supreme Court has broader territorial jurisdiction and can issue writs all over India, while High Courts have narrower territorial jurisdiction and can issue writs only in their local jurisdiction. The Supreme Court cannot refuse to issue a writ since Article 32 is a fundamental right, while High Courts have discretionary power to issue writs and thus, can refuse to issue a writ.