"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Remarriage Post-Divorce Decree Rendered Appeal Infructuous: Bombay High Court

31 August 2024 12:29 PM

By: sayum


Court emphasizes Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, denying appeal for delay condonation due to husband’s lawful remarriage. In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal by Sow. Sharda Sharad Sahane challenging a divorce decree, stating that the appeal had become infructuous due to the remarriage of the respondent, Sharad Uttamrao Sahane. The court underscored the application of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which permits remarriage after the expiration of the appeal period for a divorce decree.

The marriage between Sharda Sharad Sahane and Sharad Uttamrao Sahane was solemnized on April 2, 2013. The couple has one daughter. Following marital disputes, Sharad Uttamrao Sahane filed for divorce on December 16, 2015. Despite resisting the petition through a written statement, Sharda Sharad Sahane did not present any evidence, leading to an ex-parte decree of divorce on August 29, 2019.

Sharda Sharad Sahane later sought condonation for a 166-day delay in appealing the divorce decree, arguing that her lawyer had not informed her timely about the decree. However, the District Judge rejected this application on September 15, 2021. The present appeal was subsequently filed against this decision.

The court noted that Sharad Uttamrao Sahane had remarried on October 1, 2019, after the decree of divorce, and had a son born from this second marriage. The court referenced Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which permits remarriage once the time for appealing a divorce decree has expired without an appeal being presented.

The court criticized the appellant’s negligent approach, stating that as a responsible government officer, she should have been more diligent. The court emphasized that the appellant was aware of the respondent’s second marriage during the delay condonation proceedings but still pursued the appeal.

The court extensively cited the principles laid out in previous judgments, emphasizing that once a decree of divorce is passed, and no appeal is filed within the limitation period, remarriage is lawful. This position was supported by references to the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court’s observations in similar cases.

Justice Sandipkumar C. More remarked, “The remarriage of the respondent post-decree of divorce, in the absence of any timely appeal, makes the current appeal infructuous. The legal framework under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be upheld to maintain judicial consistency.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the legal implications of delay in challenging divorce decrees, particularly in the context of remarriage. By dismissing the appeal, the court reinforced the importance of timely legal action and adherence to statutory provisions. This judgment is expected to influence future cases involving delayed appeals and remarriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Date of Decision: July 20, 2024

Sow. Sharda Sharad Sahane vs. Sharad Uttamrao Sahane

Similar News