Shreya Gupta
On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed strong disapproval of a Bombay High Court judgment that used misogynistic language to describe a woman whose marriage was declared void. The High Court had referred to her as an “illegitimate wife” and a “faithful mistress,” prompting criticism from the apex court. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih noted that such language violated the fundamental right to dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court emphasized that every individual has a right to live with dignity and that using such derogatory terms to describe a woman in a void marriage goes against the ethos and ideals of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the High Court had not used similar adjectives for husbands in void marriages, highlighting a clear gender bias in its judgment.
The Supreme Court made these observations while answering a reference on whether a spouse is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), even when the marriage is declared void. Addressing the issue affirmatively, the Court ruled that permanent alimony can indeed be awarded to a spouse under Section 11 of the HMA, despite the marriage being void. The judgment, authored by Justice Oka, reinforced this principle while also condemning the derogatory language used in the Bombay High Court’s 2004 decision in the case of Bhausaheb alias Sandhu S/o Raguji Magar vs. Leelabai w/o Bhausaheb Magar (AIR Bom. 283 (FB)). The Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s characterization of the woman in the void marriage, stating that such language is inherently misogynistic and legally incorrect.
The Supreme Court also referenced its recent initiative, the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which aims to help judges and legal professionals recognize and challenge gender biases in legal discourse. The handbook includes a glossary of gender-unjust terms and suggests alternative words or phrases that should be used in pleadings, orders, and judgments. The Court’s recent ruling aligns with the principles outlined in this handbook, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to eliminating discriminatory language and upholding the dignity of women in legal proceedings.
Case Title: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih