Read Time: 08 minutes
The woman had argued that she was not aware that the husband had preferred an appeal against the divorce decree.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye has recently refused to grant any relief to a divorced woman who remarried a German National during the appeal period while observing that it was a classic case of litigants trying to overreach the provisions of law.
“This Interim Application is a classic example of increasing tendency amongst the litigants to try to overreach the provisions of Law by creating a situation, which is difficult to reverse, thereby making pending proceedings infructuous. In the present case, such effort is made by a wife in a matrimonial dispute arising out of divorce proceedings,” the order noted.
The high court was hearing an application filed by the wife. She stated that her marriage was solemnized with her now-divorced husband In 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The wife claimed that she was forced to leave the house due to cruel treatment of the husband and a divorce petition came to be filed. The family court allowed the divorce petition and also granted custody of the child to the wife while allowing the husband to meet the child on weekends.
The wife during the appeal period of 90 days remarried one Pradip Mannadiar, a German national of Indian origin, and at the time of that marriage, she was not aware of the appeal filed by the husband against the divorce decree. The family court was informed that the wife had already remarried while an interim stay on divorce was granted by the court.
The wife then filed a plea before the high court and contended that she had contracted second marriage when she had no knowledge of the appeal and after the second marriage and her cohabitation with her second husband, no purpose would be served in keeping the present Family Court Appeal pending. She further argued that the marriage with the previous husband had been broken irretrievably and the same is dead since 2013.
The husband argued that the woman had remarried without waiting for the statutory period of Appeal, as required under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. He further submitted that the wife had married hastily within a short span from the date of the decree and had immediately applied for the child’s passport without the knowledge and consent of the husband to deprive him of access.
During the hearing, the husband sought interim protection from the high court directing the wife not to take their child out of the jurisdiction of the high court and also prayed for staying the judgment and decree of the family court. The high court had granted an interim stay to the husband.
The high court stated that the wife could not make arguments that she was making during an interim stage but could do so at the final hearing of the appeal.
“In our considered opinion, the arguments advanced on behalf of the Applicant, can at best, be the arguments at the time of final hearing of Appeal, to urge that in the situation created by the Applicant, the appeal of the husband may not be allowed. But certainly, in our opinion, present arguments cannot be advanced as a matter of right at the interim stage,” the order stated.
The high court was left with no other option but to expedite the proceedings before the family court while denying relief to the wife.
“That leaves us with the only remaining prayer for expeditious hearing of the present Family Court Appeal, which we grant in the facts and circumstances narrated above,” the court noted.
Case Title: ABC vs XYZ
Please Login or Register
