File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Remarriage After Divorce: Legal Provisions and Judicial Interpretations

In ancient Hindu society, marriage was a sacred, lifelong union with no concept of divorce. However, societal changes necessitated legal reforms. The Sociological School emphasizes that law must adapt to societal needs as it views law as a tool to balance individuals rights and social welfare. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, broke away from this traditional view, introducing divorce as a legal remedy to address modern marital issues by recognizing the need for individual autonomy while safeguarding societal harmony.
One of the key issues arising after a divorce is the possibility of remarriage.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the concept of remarriage post-divorce is not only governed by the freedom to marry again but also involves certain procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and to avoid complications arising from appeals against divorce decrees. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically addresses the conditions under which remarriage is permissible, with a focus on ensuring that the dissolution of a marriage is final and uncontested before allowing remarriage.

This article will explore the legal provisions surrounding remarriage after divorce, its objectives, and the provisions that govern it, and case laws for better understanding of these provisions in safeguarding the rights of individuals post-divorce.

Object of Remarriage Provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The primary object behind the provisions related to remarriage after the dissolution of marriage is to balance the right of an individual to remarry with the need to protect the integrity of the legal process, especially in cases where a divorce decree is under appeal. By imposing a safeguard that prohibits remarriage until either the period for filing an appeal has expired , or the appeal has been dismissed, the law seeks to prevent complications in cases where a divorce decree is overturned.

The objective is not to restrict the individual's personal rights but to ensure that there is no legal confusion or dispute during the pendency of appeals against a divorce decree. This protection is crucial for parties who contest the dissolution of marriage, as it prevents the emergence of conflicting legal statuses and helps avoid potential disputes regarding legitimacy, inheritance, or other marital rights after the remarriage.

Provision relevant to Remarriage after Divorce

The key provisions related to remarriage after the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are as follows:

Section 15: Remarriage after Divorce Decree Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act stipulates the conditions under which remarriage is permissible after a divorce decree. It provides that:
- A party can marry again only after the dissolution of their marriage has been finalized.
- If there is no right of appeal against the divorce decree or if the appeal period has expired without an appeal being filed, the individual is free to remarry.
- If an appeal has been filed, the individual must wait until the appeal is either dismissed or the time for appeal has expired.
This provision ensures that the divorce is final and unchallenged before the individual can remarry, thus preventing complications during the appeal process.
Section 15 prior to 1976: One-Year Waiting Period Before 1976, Section 15 of the Act included a mandatory one-year waiting period following the dissolution of a marriage before either party could remarry. This waiting period was removed by the amendment in 1976, which was a significant change, allowing individuals to remarry without the need to wait a year, provided the conditions set forth in Section 15 are met.
Section 21B: Expedited Trial and Disposal of Petitions Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act emphasizes the need for expeditious trials and appeals in matrimonial matters. It mandates that:
- A petition for divorce or related proceedings should be concluded as quickly as possible, ideally within six months of the service of notice.
- Appeals should be heard within three months of the service of notice on the respondent.
The aim of this provision is to reduce delays in finalizing divorce matters and to ensure that individuals are not left in a state of legal uncertainty for extended periods.
Section 28: Appeals from Decrees and Orders Section 28 deals with the appealability of orders and decrees passed by courts in matrimonial cases. The section ensures that:
- There is a right to appeal against the court's decisions in divorce matters.
- The appeal period is limited to 90 days from the date of the decree or order.
This ensures that, once the appeal period expires, the parties are no longer constrained by any pending appeals and can move forward with their lives, including the possibility of remarriage.

Cases:
For the better interpretation and application of Section 15, it is essential to examine key case laws that have shaped the legal framework surrounding remarriage after divorce.

Jasbir Kaur vs. Kuljit Singh, 2008 [i]A decree of divorce was granted in favor of the husband. The wife filed an appeal within the limitation period, challenging the divorce decree. The court issued an interim order restraining the husband from remarrying during the pendency of the appeal. Despite this, the husband contracted a second marriage during the pendency of the appeal.

Holding: The Division Bench held that the husband's action of remarrying during the pendency of the appeal, despite the interim order, constituted "willful disobedience" of the court's order. This amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Observations:
1. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows remarriage only after the time to appeal has expired or the appeal has been dismissed.
2. A party cannot presume that no appeal has been filed without verifying its status.

Court on its Own Motion vs. Jagdeep Pal Singh, 2019: Reaffirmed the principle in Jasbir Kaur that marrying during the pendency of an appeal constitutes civil contempt. The Jasbir Kaur case reinforces that remarriage during the pendency of an appeal without ensuring compliance with Section 15 and violating court orders is unlawful and constitutes civil contempt.

Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey [ii]on 8 January, 2002: In this case, the appellant-wife remarried during the pendency of the husband's appeal challenging the decree of divorce. The second marriage occurred after the Family Court granted divorce but before the appeal was decided. The Court observed that the appellant's decision to remarry during the pendency of the appeal was undertaken at her own risk, as the appeal was a recognized right, and the outcome could potentially reverse the decree of divorce. This remarriage was seen as undermining the judicial process.

On Limitation Period for Filling Appeals under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act: The Court highlighted that the prescribed limitation period of 30days for filing an appeal was inadequate and it did not account for challenges such as geographical distances and financial constraints. It noted that such short limitation periods, coupled with the absence of a stay, could lead to situations where one spouse remarries and frustrates the other's right to appeal.

Roshan Lal vs. Veena Rani[iii] (2023): Roshan Lal (petitioner) and Veena Rani (respondent) married in 2005. Veena Rani filed for divorce in 2006, citing cruelty. In 2008, the trial court granted a divorce decree in Veena Rani's favor due to Roshan Lal's failure to pay maintenance. Roshan Lal appealed the decree in the High Court in November 2008. Despite being admitted in 2010, the appeal remains undecided. In 2018,Veena Rani remarried after waiting 10 years for the appeal to conclude, and a second child was born in 2018. Roshan Lal filed a contempt petition under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging civil contempt due to remarriage during the pendency of the appeal, contrary to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Judgment: The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding: No stay order was issued against remarriage. It noted that, the appeal's prolonged pendency (over 13 years) violated the mandate under Section 21B(3), which requires expedited disposal within three months. The respondent's remarriage after waiting for a decade did not constitute willful disobedience under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The court distinguished the case from Jasbir Kaur v. Kuljit Singh, where a stay order was in place.

Smt. Lila Gupta s. Laxmi Narain & Others[iv]: The Supreme Court interpreted the proviso to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, which prohibited remarriage within one year of divorce, as directory rather than mandatory. The Court emphasized that a marriage contracted during the prohibited period was not void since no penalty was prescribed for contravention, and Section 5 and 11 did not automatically render such marriages void. Later, the proviso was omitted by Act No. 68 of 1976, reinforcing the directory nature of the provision.

N Rajendran vs S Valli [v]:
Supreme Court interpreted that it is not necessary for the appeal to be brought to the judicial side(i.e., listed or heard by the court) within the limitation period. Filing or presenting the appeal within the limitation period is sufficient for Section 15 to apply. The phrase "presented" in Section 15 emphasizes timely filing rather than the actual hearing of the appeal. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act: Section 12 allows exclusion of the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the decree when calculating the limitation period. Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act provides a 30-day limitation for appeals but does not exclude the application of Section 12. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable to matrimonial appeals, including exclusion under Section 12.

"Suit" and "Proceedings" Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act: The word "proceedings" refers to original proceedings like suits and not appellate proceedings. Section 29(3) does not preclude the application of the Limitation Act to appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018)[vi]: Anurag Mittal's first marriage with Rachna Agarwal was dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He filed an appeal against the divorce but reached a settlement with Rachna on 15-10-2011. He applied to withdraw the appeal on 28-11-2011, and the High Court dismissed it on 20-12-2011. Meanwhile, Anurag married Shaily Mishra Mittal on 6-12-2011. Shaily later filed a petition to declare the marriage void, claiming it was contracted during the pendency of the appeal. The family court dismissed her petition, but the High Court declared the marriage void. Anurag appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that under Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of the CPC, an appeal can be withdrawn unconditionally. Anurag's appeal was deemed withdrawn on 28-11-2011, the date he applied for withdrawal. By 06-12-2011, when he remarried, Rachna was no longer a "living spouse" under the law, so Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply, making the second marriage valid. The bench referred to Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain, where it was held that a marriage in violation of Section 15 is not automatically void unless expressly declared so.

Justice Rao observed that Section 15 protects the contesting party by preventing remarriage until the appeal is resolved. Since both parties had settled, and Anurag did not intend to pursue the appeal, Section 15's restrictions did not apply. Therefore, the second marriage was lawful.

Krishnaveni Rai vs Pankaj Rai & Anr[vii]: A wife filed a maintenance petition after her second marriage. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that her second marriage was a nullity because it occurred while her appeal against the decree dissolving her first marriage was pending. The appeal was filed by her after the expiry of the limitation period for filing such an appeal.

The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah, referring to Sections 5, 11, and 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observed that it was not the legislative intent to render a marriage void if it was validly contracted after divorce and after the expiration of the limitation period for filing an appeal against the divorce decree. A belated appeal should not render such a marriage void. If the appeal is filed after the expiration of the limitation period, the second marriage cannot be deemed void unless there is a stay or interim order from the court restraining remarriage during the pendency of the appeal.

Conclusion
The provisions governing remarriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are designed to balance the individual's right to remarry with the need to uphold the integrity of the legal process. Section 15 ensures that remarriage is permissible only after the divorce decree is final and uncontested, preventing potential legal complications and safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.

The case laws discussed further illuminate the practical application of these provisions, providing valuable insights into how the judiciary interprets and enforces the balance between personal freedom and legal sanctity. Together, these legal provisions and judicial decisions contribute to a comprehensive understanding of remarriage post-divorce, ensuring fairness and finality in matrimonial disputes.

Bibliography:
Acts