No Maintenance Under DV Act After Marriage Declared Void: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the interim maintenance granted to a woman whose marriage was judicially declared void ab initio.

The bench of Justice Rajeev Misra allowed a criminal revision filed by a man, challenging two orders passed by the courts below in Ghaziabad that had directed him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife.

Court held that once the marriage itself was declared void, no domestic relationship survived to support a claim under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The couple married in 2015, but the relationship soon soured, leading to multiple FIRs filed by the wife against the man and his relatives. However, in a twist, it came to light during the anticipatory bail hearing in one of these cases that the wife was already married at the time of her wedding with the man. This fact, initially concealed, was later admitted in court.

Subsequently, the man initiated proceedings under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was void. The Family Court in Karkardooma, Delhi, granted the relief in 2021, and the wife’s appeal against it was dismissed as withdrawn by the Delhi High Court in 2022.

Despite this, the wife continued pursuing a domestic violence complaint filed in 2016, and in 2022, the Ghaziabad trial court granted her interim maintenance, which was upheld by the appellate court in 2023. The man approached the high court challenging both orders.

Setting aside the decisions of both the courts below, Justice Misra ruled that, “Once the marriage of the parties itself has been declared void-ab-initio, the subsequent relationship between the parties is of no consequence. As such, the factual position, which has emerged on record is that there is no relationship between the parties in terms of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005".

Court noted that the declaratory decree annulling the marriage had attained finality and would relate back to the date of the marriage, effectively erasing its legal existence from inception. Without such a foundational relationship, the court held, the woman could not be deemed an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act.

The judge also cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal and Deoki Panjhiyara vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad, reiterating that a void marriage does not give rise to rights under the Domestic Violence Act, unless there is a valid finding of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

Accordingly, the high court quashed the trial and appellate court orders, concluding that the woman had no legal entitlement to interim maintenance. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Title: Rajeev Sachdeva vs. State of U.P. and Another

Judgment Date: July 9, 2025

Bench: Justice Rajeev Misra