Man not liable to pay maintenance when marriage declared null & void from beginning: HC

Prayagraj: In cases where the woman had hidden her first marriage and sought maintenance from her second husband, the Allahabad high court has held that the husband is not liable to pay maintenance to the wife in such cases.

In the present case, the couple got married in 2015, but due to differences and discord, the wife lodged an FIR alleging harassment for dowry.

However, during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application filed by the husband and his family members, one fact that the wife had a first marriage also came to light. Though the wife denied it but later admitted to her first marriage. In this backdrop, the trial court noted that the wife had not approached the court with clean hands.

Subsequently, the wife filed a case under the domestic violence Act against the husband. The husband filed an application under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking declaration of the marriage as null and void. On the other hand, the wife filed an application under section 24 of Hindu marriage Act seeking maintenance and litigation expenses.

The trial court awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month (as maintenance) pendente-lite (during litigation) to the wife in proceedings under section 23 of the domestic violence Act, despite recording a finding that the marriage was dissolved.

Later, the appeal filed by the husband against the order of maintenance was dismissed by the court below. Thereafter, the husband filed the present criminal revision before the high court.

Allowing a criminal revision filed by one Rajeev Sachdeva, Justice Rajeev Mishra observed "Since by means of the declaratory decree, the marriage of the parties has been declared null and void, it shall relate back to the date of marriage. The logical outcome of the same shall be that once the marriage of the parties itself has been declared void-ab-initio (from the very beginning), the subsequent relationship between the parties is of no consequence. As such, the factual position, which has emerged on record, is that there is no relationship between the parties in terms of section 2(f) of the protection of women from domestic violence Act, 2005."

In this conspectus, the court in its judgment dated July 9 set aside the order by which maintenance was granted to the wife.