Judgments Come Into Effect From The Day Of Pronouncement, Not From The Actual Time Of Delivery: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of a Family Court, which had allowed an amendment in a divorce petition to include a plea that the marriage itself was void, on the basis that the respondent-wife remarried before the divorce decree in her previous wedding took effect.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, however, observed that “every judgment, as soon as it is delivered, becomes the operative pronouncement of the Court. Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that judgments and orders be delivered in Open Court. Such judgments or orders become effective as soon as they are dated and signed by the Judge/s.”

Advocates Johnson Gomez and Sanjay Johnson represented the petitioner, while Advocates K.R. Arun Krishnan and Deepa K. Radhakrishnan appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

One of the parties to the case, a man seeking divorce, had instituted proceedings before the Family Court initially by admitting the validity of his marriage with his wife.

Later, he applied to amend his pleadings by claiming that the marriage was void, contending that since the judgment in the divorce proceedings from the wife’s previous marriage may have been delivered only after 11 AM, being the commencement time of work in civil courts in Kerala, and the marriage had allegedly been completed by 10 AM, the latter must be treated as illegal under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court had allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the husband to proceed simultaneously on contradictory grounds, one asserting that the marriage was valid but deserving of divorce, and another contending that it was void ab initio.

Court’s Observations

The Kerala High Court held that the Family Court’s reasoning was unsustainable, as it overlooked the settled legal principle that a judgment takes effect from the commencement of the day on which it is pronounced, not from the time of its actual delivery. The Bench observed that “No judgment or decree statutorily requires to carry an endorsement of the time it was delivered, since no law provides for it. Ineluctably, therefore, once the judgment is pronounced/delivered, it takes effect immediately and operates from the commencement of the day it was so pronounced or delivered.”

The Bench highlighted that the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves no ambiguity on this aspect. It was observed that “Rule 3 of Order XX of the CPC requires every judgment to be dated and signed by the Judge/s at the time of pronouncing it; while, Rule 7 thereof prescribes the decree to bear the date on which the judgment was delivered.”

The High Court also clarified the effect of the pronouncement on limitation, noting that once a judgment is dated and signed, it becomes operative for all legal purposes. It emphasised that “the period of limitation prescribed for preferring Appeal or Revision – as the case may be – starts running from such date and not from the time of actual delivery of the judgment.”

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order permitting the amendment, while remarking that “we have little doubt that the learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the application of the 1st respondent for amendment”.

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

Click here to read/download Judgment