No Maintenance Where Marriage Declared Void: Allahabad High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Interim Relief After Nullity Decree

“A Marriage Declared Void Extinguishes Domestic Relationship Under DV Act; Maintenance Cannot Survive”, In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court set aside interim maintenance orders granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in favour of a woman whose marriage had already been declared null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice Rajeev Misra held that once the marriage is annulled, the foundational “domestic relationship” ceases to exist, disentitling the woman from any maintenance claims under the DV Act.

In unequivocal terms, the Court observed: “Once a competent court declares marriage null and void, such a decree relates back to the date of marriage. The relationship of marriage having ceased to exist ab-initio, no claim under Section 12 or Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act survives.”

“Interim Maintenance Based on Non-Existent Relationship Is Unsustainable”: High Court Cites Finality of Nullity Decree

The High Court categorically held that the earlier interim orders of the Civil Judge (JD)/FTC-I, Ghaziabad dated 23.08.2022, and the affirming appellate order dated 08.02.2023, suffered from manifest illegality. Both courts overlooked the decisive legal fact: the opposite party (wife) had withdrawn her appeal against the nullity decree, rendering it final and binding.

Justice Misra noted: “Since the marriage was void-ab-initio, no ‘domestic relationship’ as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the DV Act could exist post declaration. The continuation of proceedings and grant of maintenance after dissolution of relationship amounts to a jurisdictional error.”

“Void Marriages Have No Legal Consequences in Law”: Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal [(2010) 10 SCC 469], the High Court reiterated that to attract the provisions of the DV Act, the existence of a “domestic relationship” or “relationship in the nature of marriage” is essential. Where the marriage itself is invalid, the Court held, claims of protection under the DV Act collapse.

Quoting from D. Velusamy, the Court highlighted: “A void marriage results in a situation where the parties are never recognized as spouses in the eyes of law, thus extinguishing any claim arising out of such a relationship.”

Further, the Court referred to Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad [(2013) 2 SCC 137], emphasizing: “Only after a judicial determination of nullity can courts ascertain if any alternative protective rights exist. In this case, with a final declaration of nullity, opposite party-2 stands outside the protective ambit of the Domestic Violence Act.”

“Domestic Relationship Cannot Be Fabricated After Judicial Nullification of Marriage”: Allahabad High Court Corrects Lower Courts

The Court found both the trial and appellate courts had misdirected themselves by mechanically granting maintenance without acknowledging the legal status post-annulment:

“Both courts failed to appreciate that with the marriage voided and no subsisting relationship, jurisdiction under Sections 12 and 23 of the DV Act could not be validly exercised. Orders granting interim maintenance thus amount to continuation of proceedings without jurisdiction.”

Interim Maintenance Order Quashed, Revision Allowed

Summarising its conclusion, the High Court ruled: “Since by virtue of declaratory decree the marriage is void-ab-initio, there is no subsisting domestic relationship between the parties post 20.11.2021. Consequently, orders granting maintenance under DV Act are rendered unsustainable.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the orders dated 23.08.2022 and 08.02.2023, and directed no maintenance could be awarded under the DV Act to the opposite party-2 after nullity of marriage.

Date of Decision: 9 July 2025