9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Ex parte decree dissolving marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Delay in filing appeal and its condonation. 3. Validity of second marriage under Section 15 of the Act. 4. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act for an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Effect of remarriage on the appeal against the decree dissolving the marriage. 6. Validity of the decree based on evidence and procedural irregularities. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an appeal against an ex parte decree dissolving a marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The lower court dissolved the marriage based on the finding of adultery by the first respondent after solemnization. The evidence presented was solely the oral testimony of the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging this decree. 2. The appeal was filed after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period, but the delay was condoned by the court. The petitioner had remarried during this period, leading to a preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel regarding the appeal becoming infructuous due to the second marriage. The counsel relied on the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and cited relevant case law to support the argument. 3. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 15 of the Act concerning remarriage after the dissolution of marriage. The court referred to previous judgments and observed that the right to remarry does not automatically ensue after the expiry of the appeal period, especially if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The court deemed the appeal as filed within the allowed time after condonation of the delay. 4. The judgment delves into the effect of remarriage on the appeal against the decree dissolving the marriage. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the court emphasized that the winning party in the divorce decree should ensure no impediments to the losing party's right to appeal. The court dismissed the argument that the appeal became infructuous due to the petitioner's remarriage. 5. The court also addressed the validity of the decree based on the evidence presented and procedural irregularities. It noted that the respondents were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or present their evidence due to the advancement of the trial date. Consequently, the court set aside the decree and remanded the case to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. 6. In conclusion, the court overruled the preliminary objection regarding the appeal becoming infructuous due to the petitioner's second marriage. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the right to appeal in matrimonial matters, ensuring that parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses.
|
