Marriage Contracted Soon After Divorce Decree Not Automatically Void U/S. 15 Of Hindu Marriage Act: Kerala High Court
The Court clarified that even if a marriage is solemnised within the time frame prescribed under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it cannot be construed as illegal in all cases, unless challenged by the divorced spouse
Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a marriage contracted immediately after the grant of a divorce decree cannot automatically be treated as void under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless it is specifically challenged by the divorced spouse.
The High Court observed that the provision does not render such marriages unlawful in all cases, even though the statute prescribes a waiting period, until the appeal time has lapsed or an appeal has been dismissed.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, while deciding the matter, observed that “…the crucial query is whether a marriage contracted within the time frame mentioned in Section 15 of the ‘Act’, even when the decree of divorce has not been appealed against, can be construed to be illegal in all cases. Even a close reading of this provision would not concede to any such conclusion; though, if a person is to contract a marriage in violation of the same, it is possible that a legal challenge against it could be made by the divorced spouse.”
Advocate Johnson Gomez appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate K.R. Arun Krishnan represented the respondent.
Background
The wife had obtained a decree of divorce from her spouse in her earlier marriage through mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the very same day, she entered into marriage with the respondent-husband
The respondent-husband, while seeking divorce in the original petition, had acknowledged a valid marriage. However, he later challenged the validity of this marriage before the Family Court, contending that it was void as it contravened Section 15 of the Act, which stipulates that remarriage can be contracted only after the expiry of the appeal period or after dismissal of any appeal.
The Family Court had allowed the husband to amend his pleadings to include this ground, holding that the petitioner’s second marriage was open to question.
Aggrieved by this, the wife approached the High Court, disputing the respondent-husband's claim.
Court’s Observations
The Kerala High Court, at the outset, reaffirmed the principle that Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act authorises a person to remarry only after the limitation period for filing an appeal against the decree of divorce has expired, or, where an appeal has been preferred, it has been dismissed. The Bench observed that “on the fundamental norms, no doubt, Section 15 of the ‘Act’ would authorize a person to lawfully marry only after the time frame for appealing against the decree dissolving his/her earlier marriage has elapsed, or if an Appeal had been dismissed.” It added that “this is more manifest from Section 28 of the ‘Act’; and no one can have a case against the same.”
However, the Bench noted that in the case at hand, the respondent-wife had obtained a decree of divorce from her earlier spouse through mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act. In such circumstances, the Bench explained, the chance of an appeal is ordinarily minimal. It observed that “normally, therefore, a chance for an appeal against this is remote; and then the corollary issue arises, whether the petitioner was proscribed in law to contract a marriage with the 1st respondent.”
Emphasising that there had been no challenge to the decree of divorce, the Bench clarified that the subsequent marriage contracted by the petitioner stood protected from challenge by any person other than her first husband. The Bench remarked that “…it is unnecessary for expatiation that, when there was no challenge against Ext.P6, the marriage contracted by the petitioner on 28.12.2007 would stand protected from challenge by any other person, except her first husband; and this is more so when the same has been delivered under the ambit of Section 13B of the ‘Act’.”
Conclusion
Consequently, the High Court held that the Family Court had erred in permitting amendments that introduced conflicting pleas. The Court set aside the impugned order and restored the original pleadings.
“We have little doubt that the learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the application of the 1st respondent for amendment; and resultantly allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P5”, the Court concluded.
Cause Title: ABC V XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:60941)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Johnson Gomez and Sanjay Johnson
Respondents: Advocates K.R. Arun Krishnan, M.S. Ajithkumar and Deepa K. Radhakrishnan
