Latest news with #HinduMarriageAct
Mint
10 hours ago
- General
- Mint
My parents' marriage was not valid under Hindu law. Can I inherit property from my late father?
If you were born out of a void marriage or a voidable marriage that was annulled, you would have a share in the inheritance of your late father's properties as per Hindu law. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) confers legitimacy upon children born out of such void or voidable marriages. A void marriage has no legal status from the outset (e.g., if a party has a spouse at the time of the marriage); whereas a voidable marriage is considered valid until it is annulled by court decree (e.g., if a party was incapable of giving valid consent to marriage owing to unsoundness of mind). Accordingly, under the HMA, you would be treated as the 'legitimate' child of your parents as if the marriage had been valid, and would have rights in your late father's properties in the same manner as any other child born to your father from his subsequent valid marriage. However, this does not confer on you rights in relation to the property of other relatives such as your grandparents (unless they specifically name you as a legatee in their will). With respect to ancestral/HUF property, you will not be considered as a coparcener even though your father may have been the karta or coparcener. Your rights (shared with other legal heirs) are limited to your father's share in such joint family/HUF property, which would be ascertained as if a notional partition of such property had taken place immediately before his death. This is assuming that your father belonged to a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law. This position on the inheritance rights of a child born from a void or voidable Hindu marriage who is deemed to be 'legitimate' under the HMA differs from that of 'illegitimate children' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA). Under the HSA, 'illegitimate children' are deemed to be related to their mother and to one another and therefore can inherit only from the mother and not the father. This does not apply in your case, given your status as a child born from a marriage that is void or voidable. Please consult a lawyer to understand the application of these general legal principles to the facts and circumstances of your case. Shaishavi Kadakia is a partner and Sachi Shah is a Senior Associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai.
News18
a day ago
- News18
Wife's Past Marital Status Irrelevant To Interim Maintenance Claim: Allahabad High Court
Last Updated: The observation came in a case where a woman challenged a family court decision denying her interim maintenance on the ground that she had concealed details of her earlier marriage The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the veracity of a woman's past marital status need not be examined while deciding her application for maintenance during litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The observation came in a case where a woman challenged a family court's decision denying her interim maintenance on the ground that she had concealed details of her earlier marriage. The family court had found that her previous marriage had ended only in April 2024, whereas she had remarried in February 2021, allegedly in violation of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act which bars bigamy. However, a division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held that such factual determinations regarding her previous husband were unnecessary for adjudicating the interim maintenance plea. The high court emphasised that the sole consideration under Section 24 is whether the applicant lacks sufficient income to support herself and bear litigation costs. 'For purpose of adjudicating the appeal, it is not necessary for us to find on other facts regarding allegation of appellant that there was separation from her first husband… This is because section 24 provides for a spouse to have maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings," the bench noted. The husband, who worked in the police, argued that the marriage was void due to concealment and relied on 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur to argue that conduct matters in deciding maintenance. His counsel also claimed that the woman had falsely stated she was employed in the Income Tax department. The high court, however, found that there was no evidence on record to prove the woman was earning or had financial means. On the contrary, it noted that she had moved to live with the respondent in Kanpur after the marriage, and was now residing at her original address in Jhansi. The high court observed that allegations of deceit, even if ultimately proven, do not override the financial necessity that Section 24 seeks to address. Setting aside the family court's order, the bench directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 15,000 per month to the appellant from the date of her application, April 15, 2025. Arrears were also ordered to be cleared by June 14, 2025, and monthly payments will continue by the 7th of each subsequent month. The court also urged the family court to expedite the main matrimonial case without delay, while cautioning the wife against seeking adjournments. First Published: June 09, 2025, 15:26 IST
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Divorce: Permanent alimony for wife revised by 2.5 times up by SC within 9 years of HC fixing it Rs 20,000 per month
The Supreme Court of India on May 29, 2025, ordered a husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month, which is 2.5 times the permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Earlier, the permanent alimony amount fixed by the Calcutta High Court in 2016 was Rs 20,000, with an increase of 5% every three years. The Supreme Court said: 'The wife, who in this case has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future.' Moreover, the Supreme Court also upheld the Calcutta High Court order, which asked the husband to redeem the home loan taken on the house and transfer the title deed to his former wife's name. The husband did not fight this point and duly complied with the order, but he challenged the fact of paying alimony for both his wife and son. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When the Camera Clicked at the Worst Possible Time Read More Undo He, however, contended that his son is now 26 years old and is non-dependent. The husband also said that while it's true his income level has increased since the time of their divorce , he has since then remarried, and he has ageing parents also to take care of. After hearing and analysing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said that, while they can't direct the husband to pay maintenance to his son, the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with the law. Hence, the Supreme Court accepted the husband's lawyer's contention about paying child maintenance but rejected his reservations about paying a higher alimony to the wife. Live Events The SC also said: 'Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount.' Read below to understand the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision to more than double the monthly permanent alimony, along with the legal reasoning behind it. How did this alimony case go on for 17 years? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here's a timeline of events: June 18, 1997: The couple married following Hindu ceremonies. August 5, 1998: A son was born to the newly married couple. July 2008: The husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the wife. Subsequently, the wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. January 14, 2010: The Trial Court, by order dated January 14, 2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month, along with Rs 10,000 for litigation expenses, to the wife. March 28, 2014: The wife then instituted a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated March 28, 2014, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 6,000 per month to the minor son, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. May 14, 2015: Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, by order dated May 14, 2015, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month. January 10, 2016: The Trial Court, vide order dated January 1, 2016, dismissed the matrimonial suit, finding that the respondent-husband had failed to prove cruelty. July 14, 2016: Subsequently, by order dated July 14, 2016, the High Court noted that the respondent-husband was drawing a net monthly salary of Rs 69,000 and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 20,000 per month. June 25, 2019: The High Court, by order dated June 25, 2019, allowed the husband's appeal, granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. February 20, 2023: The Supreme Court of India issued a notice confined to the question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to the wife. November 7, 2023: By interim order dated November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court, noting the absence of representation on behalf of the husband despite proof of service, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs 75,000 with effect from November 1, 2023. The husband subsequently entered the appearance and filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order. May 29, 2025: The Supreme Court's final judgement ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony, with a 5% increase every two years. Legal arguments used by husband and wife The wife asks, why is she getting Rs 20,000 per month as alimony when her former husband is earning Rs 4 lakh per month? The former wife's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs 20,000 per month, which the High Court made final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent-husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs 4,00,000 and the quantum of alimony awarded is not commensurate with the standard of living maintained by the parties during marriage.' The husband counters his former wife's argument by saying he has to support expenses for his second marriage and old parents The husband's lawyers said before the Supreme Court of India: 'In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs 1,64,039, earned from his employment. He has submitted salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs 1,72,088 and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.' What did the Supreme Court of India say? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 29, 2025, here are the details: Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount. The Supreme Court's final judgement: Pay former wife Rs 50,000 per month as permanent alimony The Supreme Court said: In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs 50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above. Nikita Anand, Partner at Magnus Legal Services LLP, says: 'Maintenance is not charity but a right that must be calibrated to genuine financial realities and the lifestyle disruption caused by marital breakdown. The days of token alimony amounts may well be numbered.' Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "This is a classic case where alimony is granted by default irrespective of the outcome of the main divorce case. In the current scenario, parties had been separated since 2008 where maintenance to wife was granted on the husband's then income. In 2025, the Supreme Court has enhanced permanent alimony to the wife even where cruelty by her had been proven and divorce was granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty. When courts award alimony to wives despite cruelty proven, it leaves the husbands - who approach court for justice - with very little hope. In my opinion, the husband in this case just got freedom, not justice." Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court, says: 'This judgment holds immense significance for women who, after divorce, are left unheard and unsupported when it comes to claiming maintenance from their husbands. Many are forced to run from pillar to post, struggling through the legal system just to secure a rightful order for themselves and their children—simply to survive with dignity in society. Prachi Dubey, Advocate, Delhi High Court, "By increasing the wife's maintenance to Rs 50,000 with incremental raises every second year, the court upheld in past decisions that inflation should be considered while providing spousal support and should be reflective of the standard of living during the marriage. It also made distinction between spousal and child support, maintained the position with respect to the son's rights to inherit, and accepted tacitly that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is a ground for divorce." Singh adds: 'This judgment sets a significant precedent for wives and legitimate children who are often left with no option but to repeatedly approach the court to seek a dignified standard of living and rightful maintenance from their husband or father. It establishes a benchmark that reinforces the court's role as a guardian of justice—offering hope and support to women seeking financial stability and to children who depend on their father's support as they grow. It is indeed a remarkable, meaningful, and much-needed ruling that upholds both fairness and compassion.' Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: This judgment clarifies that maintenance can be increased based on the husband's higher income, irrespective of his remarriage. It also holds that financial support is not mandatory for a child who has attained majority. A key takeaway is that the maintenance amounts mentioned in the divorce decree is not set in stone and may be modified based on changed circumstances. Anand says: 'The Supreme Court refused to accept the husband's claimed reduction in income at face value. Despite his assertion that his current monthly net income was Rs 1,64,039, the court considered his "past earnings" and professional background, including his previous employment with a hotel at an annual salary exceeding Rs 21 lakh. This sends a clear warning that spouses cannot deliberately reduce their income or accept lower-paying positions to evade maintenance obligations. The court's approach creates a stronger deterrent against income suppression tactics and encourages a more robust assessment of a party's true earning potential based on their professional trajectory and historical income patterns.' Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS, says: "The instant judgement is a reiteration of the fact that while deciding the alimony amount the court needs to weigh in various factors viz., residential rights, wife's status of living before divorce, any medical ailment, dependence of children, Inflation rates etc. In this case, the wife remained unmarried and had no other source of income to sustain herself except the amount which has been provided to her by her husband. So, therefore the amount of ₹20,000 provided to her as an alimony by the High court was enhanced by the Supreme Court to ₹50,000 per month along with 5 % increase after every two years keeping in mind the high cost of living and the prevailing inflation. In my opinion, it is imperative to be pragmatic while deciding the alimony amount as the amount so awarded will not only cater to her basic needs of sustenance but also provide her with a life of dignity and respect."
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Loan deductions no excuse to deny maintenance: Delhi HC
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has clarified that personal loans, EMIs, or other voluntary financial obligations cannot be used as an excuse by an earning spouse to avoid paying maintenance to a dependent spouse or child. A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that deductions such as house rent, power bills, life insurance premiums, and EMIs for personal borrowings do not count as legitimate reductions in income when calculating maintenance payments. 'These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child,' the court said in its order dated May 26. The high court was hearing an appeal filed by a man challenging a family court's decision that directed him to pay Rs 15,000 per month for the maintenance of his wife and child. The wife had approached the family court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim financial aid. The husband argued that the court had not taken into account his financial burdens, including EMI payments for a property loan and premiums for a mediclaim policy that also covered his wife and child.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Personal Loans and EMIs Do Not Override Maintenance Obligations: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: While dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order that allowed the wife's application for maintenance, recently said that personal loans or EMIs were voluntary obligations. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now These cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child, it added. A division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar noted that deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for the purpose of maintenance. The court stated, "A person cannot wriggle out of his/her statutory liability to maintain his/her spouse and dependents by artificially reducing his/her disposable income through personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments undertaken unilaterally. " The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging a family court order of April 19, which allowed the wife's application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband was directed to pay a monthly payment of Rs 15,000 towards the maintenance of the wife and the child. In his plea, the husband argued that the family court failed to consider the fact that he was consistently paying EMIs towards a property loan. He also mentioned that he was paying for a mediclaim policy in which the wife and their child were also covered. The bench rejected the husband's contention that EMIs and other loan obligations eroded his take-home income. It noted that the wife was suffering from a medical condition and was simultaneously responsible for the care and upbringing of the minor child born out of the wedlock. "These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child," the bench said. The bench emphasised that maintenance is not to be assessed based on the net income after such personal deductions, but rather on the free income that reflects the actual earning capacity and standard of living of the party concerned.
