Supreme Court condemns use of "illegitimate wife" as misogynistic and undignified
text_fields
The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised the use of terms like "illegitimate wife" and "faithful mistress" in a Bombay High Court judgment, calling such language misogynistic and a violation of fundamental rights.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih observed that such terminology was inappropriate and contrary to the constitutional principles of dignity and equality. The apex court noted that while describing a woman in a marriage later declared void, the high court had used derogatory terms that undermined her dignity. However, no similar language was used for the husbands in such marriages.
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, every individual has the fundamental right to live with dignity, the court emphasised. It ruled that referring to a woman as an "illegitimate wife" or a "faithful mistress" was not only disrespectful but also unconstitutional.
"No one should use such adjectives when referring to a woman who was part of a void marriage," the bench stated.
The case before the Supreme Court involved a legal discussion on Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While Section 24 pertains to maintenance and legal expenses during ongoing proceedings, Section 25 deals with permanent alimony and financial support.
The bench ruled that a spouse from a void marriage, as per Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, can seek permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25. However, the decision to grant such relief would depend on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties involved. The court also clarified that even if a marriage was declared void or voidable, maintenance could still be granted under Section 24 while proceedings were underway.
Since the grant of relief under Sections 24 and 25 is discretionary, courts must assess individual circumstances before making a ruling, the bench noted.
Following this ruling, the Supreme Court directed its registry to assign the appeals to an appropriate bench for further consideration based on their merits.