1989 (3) TMI 397 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the decree of nullity under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Applicability of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act to decrees of nullity.
3. Impact of remarriage on the appeal process.
4. Applicability of Limitation Act provisions to appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Decree of Nullity under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act:
The respondent husband filed a petition on March 7, 1984, for a declaration that the marriage with the appellant wife was a nullity under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act, on the grounds that the wife was pregnant by someone other than the respondent at the time of marriage. The IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur, granted the decree on May 3, 1985, declaring the marriage null and void. The appellant wife contested this decree by filing a regular civil appeal on July 19, 1985.

2. Applicability of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act to Decrees of Nullity:
The core issue was whether Section 15, which allows remarriage after a decree of divorce, applies to decrees of nullity under Sections 11 and 12. The appellant contended that the term "divorce" in Section 15 should be interpreted broadly to include decrees of nullity. The respondent argued that Section 15 specifically refers to "marriage dissolved by decree for divorce," and thus does not apply to decrees of nullity. The Supreme Court examined the language of Sections 11, 12, and 13, noting that while the phraseology differs, the legal effect is the same: the relationship between spouses is severed. The Court concluded that Section 15 should be interpreted in light of Section 28, which provides for appeals against all decrees under the Act, including those under Sections 11 and 12. Therefore, Section 15 applies to decrees of nullity as well.

3. Impact of Remarriage on the Appeal Process:
The respondent remarried on June 27, 1985, before the appellant filed her appeal. The lower courts held that this remarriage rendered the appeal infructuous. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that if Section 15 applies to decrees of nullity, then the right of appeal should not be nullified by the remarriage of the other party. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal under Section 28 is unqualified and should not be subject to the actions of the other party. Consequently, the remarriage did not render the appeal infructuous.

4. Applicability of Limitation Act Provisions to Appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act:
The respondent argued that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 28(4) of the Act should not include the time taken to obtain copies of the judgment and decree, as per Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act. The appellant contended that Section 29(3) applies only to suits or original proceedings, not appeals. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, noting that Section 2(1) of the Limitation Act defines "suit" as not including an appeal or application. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, including Section 12(2) which allows exclusion of time taken to obtain copies, apply to appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was within the time limit when computed with this exclusion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate court to hear the appeal on its merits. The Court also suggested that the lower appellate court consider additional evidence regarding the paternity of the child if approached by the parties. The appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 2500/-.

This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant issues are addressed with in-depth details and preserves the essential legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment.