Second Marriage During Appeal Period Valid If Divorce Decree Remains Unchallenged By Ex-spouse: Kerala High Court
- INTRODUCTION
In a recent and important decision under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Kerala High Court clarified that a second marriage contracted within the statutory appeal period following a divorce decree will not automatically be treated as invalid, so long as the earlier decree remains unchallenged by the former spouse. This ruling provides clarity on the interplay between the timing of divorce decrees, appeals, and the validity of subsequent marital unions under Indian law.
- LEGAL BACKGROUND
Section 15 of the HMA governs the capacity of a divorced person to marry again. It states that after a marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce, a person may remarry only when:
i. there is no right of appeal against the divorce decree; or
ii. the period for filing an appeal has expired without an appeal being filed; or
iii. if an appeal has been filed, it has been dismissed.
The object of Section 15 is to prevent bigamy and to ensure that the institution of marriage—regarded as a social contract—is respected. However, questions often arise when parties remarry during the appeal period after a divorce decree has been granted but before any appeal is pursued or decided.
- FACTS OF THE CASE
In Rakhi v. Krishnakumar & Ors., the wife (petitioner) challenged an order of the Family Court permitting her husband to amend his pending divorce petition. In his original petition, the husband had admitted the validity of his marriage. Subsequently, upon discovering that his wife’s earlier marriage had been dissolved by a divorce decree on the same date as their marriage, he sought to introduce a plea that the marriage was void.
The Family Court allowed this amendment, enabling contradictory claims—that the marriage was both valid and void—to be asserted in the same petition. Aggrieved, the wife challenged this order before the Kerala High Court.
- ISSUES, JUDGMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE
A. Issues Before the Court
The key legal questions before the Court were:
i. Whether a decree of divorce, followed immediately by a subsequent marriage within the appeal period, renders such subsequent marriage void in law; and
ii. Whether the Family Court was justified in allowing contradictory pleadings regarding the validity of the marriage.
B. Judgment and Reasoning
The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, held that a marriage contracted during the appeal period cannot be invalidated solely on the basis of timing when the divorce decree itself remains unchallenged by the former spouse.
The Court observed that once a divorce decree is pronounced, it takes effect from the commencement of the date on which it is delivered, unless and until it is set aside on appeal. Accordingly, even if a subsequent marriage is contracted on the same day as the divorce decree, it is not automatically unlawful merely because it occurred during the appeal period.
The Bench rejected the husband’s reliance on the exact hour of delivery of the decree to invoke Section 15 of the HMA, noting that the provision does not contemplate such hour-based technicalities. Since the earlier decree had not been challenged, the subsequent marriage was protected from collateral attack.
The Court further held that the Family Court erred in permitting amendments that resulted in mutually destructive pleadings—asserting both the validity and voidness of the same marriage—without deleting the original admissions. Such inconsistent pleadings were impermissible. Consequently, the amendment order was set aside.
C. Significance of the Decision
This judgment carries important implications for family law jurisprudence:
i. Clarification of Section 15 HMA: The ruling reinforces that Section 15 aims to regulate lawful remarriage, while allowing flexibility where a divorce decree remains unchallenged.
ii. Protection of Subsequent Marriages: Marriages entered into after a divorce decree are not rendered invalid merely because they occur within the statutory appeal period.
iii. Pleadings and Court Practice: Courts should not permit contradictory pleadings that undermine procedural discipline and legal certainty.
The reasoning aligns with broader judicial principles and Supreme Court precedents holding that incapacity to remarry during the appeal period does not render a subsequent marriage void if the decree is ultimately neither challenged nor overturned.
- CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Rakhi v. Krishnakumar & Ors. underscores that the validity of a second marriage following a divorce decree cannot be defeated on technical grounds relating to the appeal period, particularly when the decree remains unchallenged. By prioritising legal certainty and substantive justice over procedural formalism, the decision safeguards matrimonial stability and the legitimate expectations of parties entering into subsequent marital unions.
This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practises divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified advocate specialising in divorce matters for professional guidance.
Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
