Calling woman ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘faithful mistress’ misogynistic: SC
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih took exception to the language used, emphasising that such terminology was against the principles of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih took exception to the language used, emphasising that such terminology was against the principles of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih took exception to the language used, emphasising that such terminology was against the principles of the Constitution.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the Bombay High Court for using the terms "illegitimate wife" and "faithful mistress" to describe a woman in a judgment, calling it a violation of her fundamental rights and a reflection of misogynistic attitudes.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih took exception to the language used, emphasising that such terminology was against the principles of the Constitution, reported PTI. The court remarked that it was unfortunate that the high court had referred to the woman as an "illegitimate wife" and went further to call her a "faithful mistress."
The Supreme Court held that using such words was highly inappropriate, as it diminished her dignity and was inherently discriminatory. The judges noted that no similar terms were used to describe men in such cases, highlighting a clear gender bias in the judgment.
Observing that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to a dignified life, the court stated that describing a woman in such derogatory terms amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights. It further declared that no one should be addressed in this manner, especially in cases related to void marriages.
The bench was hearing a reference regarding conflicting interpretations of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 24 provides for interim maintenance and litigation expenses, while Section 25 deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. The Supreme Court clarified that a spouse from a void marriage under Section 11 of the Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25. However, the grant of such relief remains discretionary and depends on the facts and conduct of the parties involved.
The court also ruled that even if a marriage is deemed void or voidable, courts can still grant interim maintenance under Section 24 while the case is pending, provided the necessary conditions are met. It directed the Supreme Court registry to place the appeals before the appropriate bench for further proceedings on merit.