GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an interlocutory application filed by a woman seeking condonation for a 122-day delay in filing a matrimonial appeal challenging an ex-parte divorce decree issued by the District Court. The court held that the bar under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding remarriage did not apply and that the delay was not satisfactorily explained.
Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia heard the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application sought condonation of the delay in preferring the matrimonial appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The case originated when the applicant's ex-husband sought a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The District Court in Kokrajhar issued a notice to the applicant, who received but did not contest it.
Consequently, the court passed an ex-parte decree on July 17, 2021. Failing to appeal the decree within the stipulated time, the applicant filed an appeal after a 122-day delay.
She cited her inability to contest the case due to being sent to Mathura, U.P., during the COVID-19 period by her husband, and her responsibilities towards her 8-year-old son and elderly parents as reasons for the delay. The applicant's counsel referenced the Supreme Court judgement in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) to support her case.
Conversely, the respondent, who remarried on May 26, 2022, argued that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period. His counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020), which clarified that the bar under Section 15 applies only if an appeal is filed within the limitation period, not after a delay unless there is a stay or interim order restraining remarriage during the appeal's pendency.
ALSO READ: Gauhati High Court Asserts Legal Obligation Of Husband To Financially Support Wife
The court noted that since no appeal was filed within 90 days of the ex-parte decree, the respondent’s remarriage was valid. Justice Saikia concluded that Section 15's bar did not apply and the delay was inadequately explained.
As a result, the high court dismissed the interlocutory application.