{"id":2944,"date":"2025-01-03T12:09:11","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T12:09:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=2944"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:19:50","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:49:50","slug":"ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chandra Daga v Rameshwari Daga 2005(Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"2944\" class=\"elementor elementor-2944\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Ramesh Chandra Daga v Rameshwari Daga AIR 2005 SC422 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1.jpg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-3089\" alt=\"Ramesh Chandra Daga v Rameshwari Daga AIR 2005 SC422\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1.jpg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1-300x168.jpg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1-1024x574.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1-150x84.jpg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-courtroom-setting-with-a-judge-plainti_RvdTmTOjQN2DdDA3-cMmrQ_I6tFRgDlQ-maAnjJRI4zHA1-768x431.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this notable case, the Supreme Court dealt with the complex issue of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where the marriage was declared null and void. The Court upheld the wife\u2019s right to maintenance, even after the declaration of the second marriage as a nullity, recognizing the importance of protecting economically vulnerable spouses.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/#Facts_of_Ramesh_Chandra_Daga_v_Rameshwari_Daga\" >Facts of Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Ramesh_Chandra_Daga_v_Rameshwari_Daga\" >Judgment of Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/ramesh-chandra-daga-v-rameshwari-daga-2005case-summary\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Ramesh_Chandra_Daga_v_Rameshwari_Daga\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioner, Ramesh Chand Daga(Husband), married the respondent, Rameshwari Daga, on July 11, 1981.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The husband(Petitioner) had been previously married, and his first wife passed away. The petitioner had also been married earlier but had only obtained a customary divorce (Chhor Chithhi) without a formal court decree of divorce.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A daughter was born from the second marriage in 1983.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Respondent (Wife) alleged cruelty and filed for judicial separation and maintenance.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The husband(Petitioner) filed a counter-petition, challenging the validity of the second marriage on the grounds that the petitioner&#8217;s first marriage had not been legally dissolved by a court.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the second marriage between the petitioner and respondent was valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, given that the petitioner\u2019s first marriage had not been legally dissolved?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the petitioner was entitled to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, despite the second marriage being declared a nullity?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Family Court granted judicial separation and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000\/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2,000\/- per month for her daughter. The respondent&#8217;s petition to declare the marriage null and void was dismissed.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The High Court reversed the Family Court\u2019s decision, declaring the second marriage null and void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the petitioner\u2019s first marriage had not been legally dissolved. Despite this, the High Court upheld the grant of maintenance under Section 25 to the respondent and her daughter.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Ramesh_Chandra_Daga_v_Rameshwari_Daga\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the Supreme Court, the case hinged on Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for the grant of maintenance to either spouse at the time of passing any decree under the Act, including a decree of nullity.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court affirmed that the phrase &#8220;at the time of passing any decree&#8221; in Section 25 includes decrees of nullity. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, which clarified that permanent alimony can be granted even when a marriage is declared null and void.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#8217;s decision, maintaining the decree of nullity but confirming the petitioner\u2019s right to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Rameshwari-Chandra-Daga-v-Rameshwari-Daga-AIR-2005-SC422.pdf\" data-wplink-edit=\"true\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Rameshwari-Chandra-Daga-v-Rameshwari-Daga-AIR-2005-SC422.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this notable case, the Supreme Court dealt with the complex issue of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where the marriage was declared null and void. The Court upheld the wife\u2019s right to maintenance, even after the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3089,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[67,71,12],"class_list":["post-2944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-maintenance","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2944"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2944\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4386,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2944\/revisions\/4386"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}