GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. THEMBATTY RAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and respondent were husband and wife. The husband filed O.P. No. 22 of 1981 under S.12 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming that the marriage was null and void since he was an epileptic and impotent. It was his case that the marriage was not consummated for those reasons. The application was allowed by judgment dated 18-10-1982, The respondent filed an application, I. A. No. 26 of 1983, before the lower court under S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem till she remarried. The appellant resisted the application. He contended that the application under S.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not maintainable in a case where the marriage itself was declared null and void. He also contended that the respondent, his former wife, was not entitled to any maintenance at all, since the effect of the decree of nullity of marriage was that there never existed any jural relationship between them and they were to be treated as if they were total and absolute strangers. Counsel placed reliance on a number of decisions, in support of the proposition, that maintenance can be granted only in cases where the court by decree dissolves the marriage or directs judicial separation and not in cases where it annuls the marriage as invalid or void altogether.

(2.) The Trial Court, however, found that S.25 would be applicable to all cases of disruption of marriage by decree of court, whether it be divorce, dissolution of marriage, judicial separation, or annulment of marriage. On a consideration of the evidence relating to the comparative means of parties, the lower court ordered that the appellant should pay the respondent an amount of Rs. 150/- per month till her death or till she remarries or till the order is otherwise varied or modified.

(3.) Shri P.N.K. Achan, counsel for the appellant, urged emphatically that the effect of a declaration that the marriage was null and void is as if the spouses were never married at all. He submits that only spouses of disrupted marriages are entitled to claim maintenance and not strangers who were accidentally drawn into a void relationship which had no legal effect.