The Supreme Court on Wednesday took exception to a Bombay High Court order which used "illegitimate wife" and "faithful mistress" to describe a woman and said it amounted to the violation of her fundamental rights and was misogynistic.
Observing the use of such words was against the ethos and ideals of the Constitution, a full bench (three judges) of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih took note of the "objectionable language" used by the Bombay High Court.
"Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court went to the extent of using the words 'illegitimate wife'. Shockingly, in paragraph 24, the high court described such a wife as a 'faithful mistress'," it added.
The apex court said calling the woman, who was in a marriage that was declared void, as an "illegitimate wife" was "very inappropriate" and affected her dignity.
The bench notably observed the high court did not use similar adjectives for husbands of void marriages.
Under Section 21 of the Constitution, said the bench, every person had a fundamental right to lead a dignified life.
"Calling a woman an 'illegitimate wife' or 'faithful mistress' will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Describing a woman by using these words is against the ethos and ideals of our Constitution," it said.
The court said no one could use such adjectives while referring to a woman who was a party to a void marriage.
The top court was hearing a reference in a matter over conflicting views on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance pendente lite (pending the suit) and expenses of proceedings, Section 25 relates to permanent alimony and maintenance.
"A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking section 25 of the 1955 Act," held the bench.
It said whether such a relief of permanent alimony could be granted or not would always depend on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties.
"The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary," it added.
Even if a court came to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties was void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the Act, the court was not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 were satisfied, said the bench.
The court opined when it came to deciding the prayer under Section 24, a court would always consider the conduct of the party as the grant of relief under it was "always discretionary".
It directed the apex court registry to place the appeals before the appropriate bench for a decision on merits.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
