Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained : Gauhati High Court Denies Condonation in Matrimonial Appeal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court Upholds Validity of Remarriage Post Appeal Period in Light of COVID-19 and Family Responsibilities

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 122-day delay in filing a matrimonial appeal against an ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage. Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia presided over the case and emphasized that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that the remarriage of the respondent, which occurred after the expiration of the appeal period, was lawful.

The case involves Rashmi Indouliya, the appellant, who sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in filing an appeal against the dissolution of her marriage with Ved Prakash Indouliya. The marriage was dissolved ex parte by the District Judge, Kokrajhar, on July 17, 2021, after Rashmi failed to contest the proceedings. Ved Prakash remarried on May 26, 2022, following the expiration of the appeal period.

Justice Saikia highlighted the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows remarriage after a divorce decree if no appeal is filed within the prescribed period. “The bar under Section 15 applies only if an appeal is filed within the limitation period,” the judgment noted. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) 11 SCC 253, which clarified that the bar on remarriage does not apply if the appeal is filed beyond the limitation period unless the divorce decree is stayed or an interim order restraining remarriage is issued.

The appellant cited the COVID-19 pandemic and family responsibilities as reasons for the delay. She claimed that she was sent to Mathura and could not contest the case, and had to take care of her eight-year-old son and elderly parents. However, the court found these reasons insufficient. “The delay has not been satisfactorily explained in this case,” Justice Saikia stated.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) 2 SCC 90, which underscores the responsibility of parties to be aware of the appeal status and the conditions under which remarriage is permissible. “It was incumbent on the respondent to have enquired about the fate of the appeal,” the judgment reiterated, indicating that Ved Prakash’s remarriage was conducted lawfully as no appeal was pending within the stipulated time frame.

Justice Saikia remarked, “The bar of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not be applicable in the present case,” and further added, “For these two reasons, I hereby hold that the delay cannot be condoned.”

The Gauhati High Court’s decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay underscores the judiciary’s adherence to procedural timelines and legal responsibilities in matrimonial cases. By affirming the validity of the respondent’s remarriage, the judgment reinforces the legal framework governing divorce and remarriage, providing clarity on the applicability of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

 

Date of Decision: June 12, 2024

Rashmi Indouliya @ Chaudhary v. Ved Prakash Indouliya

Similar News