No Maintenance under DV Act after Marriage Declared Void: Allahabad High Court

No Maintenance under DV Act after Marriage Declared Void: Allahabad High Court. Justice Rajeev Misra, while deciding a criminal revision petition, ruled that a woman cannot claim protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) once the marriage is held to be void ab initio, as no legally recognized domestic relationship exists in such circumstances.

Background of the Case

The parties got married in 2015, but their relationship quickly deteriorated, resulting in several criminal complaints filed by the woman against the man and his family. During one of the anticipatory bail hearings, it was revealed—and later admitted in court—that the woman had an existing marriage at the time she married the petitioner.

Based on this disclosure, the man filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that the marriage was void from the beginning. In 2021, the Family Court, Karkardooma (Delhi), granted the declaration, and the woman’s appeal before the Delhi High Court was dismissed as withdrawn in 2022, giving finality to the decree.

Despite this, the woman continued pursuing a domestic violence case initiated in 2016. The Ghaziabad trial court, in 2022, awarded her interim maintenance of Rs- 10,000 per month, and this decision was later upheld by the appellate court in 2023. Challenging these orders, the man approached the Allahabad High Court.

Court’s Observations

Justice Misra emphasized that once a marriage is declared void ab initio, it is treated as if it never existed in the eyes of law. The declaratory decree annulling the marriage takes effect retrospectively, erasing all legal consequences of the relationship from the date of the purported marriage.

Referring to Section 2(f) of the DV Act, the court held that the absence of a valid domestic relationship disqualifies the woman from being treated as an “aggrieved person” under the Act. The judge further observed that the subsequent interactions between the parties, after the annulment, had no legal relevance.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s precedents, particularly D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad, which categorically state that a void marriage does not create rights under the DV Act unless it is established that the relationship was “in the nature of marriage.”

Decision

Setting aside the orders of the lower courts, the High Court held that the woman was not entitled to claim interim maintenance, as the marriage had no legal sanctity from the outset. The court directed that both sides should bear their respective costs.

This ruling reiterates the legal position that only valid marriages or relationships akin to marriage can attract protection under the DV Act, thereby excluding claims arising from relationships declared void from inception.

Case details: [Rajeev Sachdeva vs. State of U.P. and Another decided on July 9, 2025]