In a ruling clarifying the finality of divorce proceedings and the validity of subsequent marriages, the Kerala High Court has held that a husband cannot seek to nullify his marriage on the grounds that his wife’s divorce decree from a previous marriage was granted a few hours after their wedding ceremony on the same day.
A division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that when a prior divorce is obtained by mutual consent and is not challenged by the former spouse, the new spouse has no standing to later declare the marriage void based on such technicalities. The court set aside a Family Court order that had permitted the husband to amend his divorce petition to include this plea.
Background of the Matrimonial Dispute
The case concerned a couple married on December 28, 2007. The husband had initially filed a petition (O.P.(HMA)No.29/2023) seeking a divorce, thereby admitting the validity of the marriage. Subsequently, he filed an application to amend his petition, introducing a new claim that the marriage was null and void. His argument was that his wife’s divorce from her first husband was granted by the Family Court, Kollam, on the same day as their wedding, but at a later hour. He contended their marriage ceremony at 10 A.M. preceded the court’s judgment, which he claimed was delivered after 11 A.M., rendering their union invalid. The Family Court allowed the amendment, which led to the wife appealing to the High Court.
Arguments on Marriage Law
The respondent-husband, through his counsel Sri. K.R. Arun Krishnan, heavily relied on Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He argued that it was unlawful for his wife to have married him on December 28, 2007, because the time for filing an appeal against her divorce decree from her first marriage had not expired.
The petitioner-wife, represented by Sri. Johnson Gomez, countered that the husband’s original petition for divorce accepted the marriage as legal. The amendment sought to introduce a contradictory plea, turning a divorce petition into a nullity petition without seeking it as an alternative relief.
High Court’s Analysis on Validity of Marriage
The High Court first examined the application of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It noted that the wife’s prior divorce was granted by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, where the possibility of an appeal is “remote.”
Crucially, the bench questioned the husband’s legal standing to raise this challenge. The court reasoned that a potential legal challenge against a marriage contracted before the appeal period expires could possibly be made by the divorced spouse. In this case, the wife’s former husband never challenged her remarriage. The Court stated, “When there is no challenge by the petitioner’s former husband to her subsequent marriage, we fail to fathom how the 1st respondent can now say that her marriage with him is null and void.”
The judgment further disapproved of the procedural irregularity allowed by the Family Court. By permitting the amendment, the petition contained two conflicting positions: first, that the marriage is valid and should be dissolved by divorce, and second, that the marriage is void from its inception. The Court described this as creating “a scenario of two antipodean streams.”
While the husband’s primary argument rested on the timing, the court also dismissed its factual basis, reiterating that a judgment operates from the commencement of the day it is delivered, not the specific hour of pronouncement.
Decision
Concluding that the husband could not challenge the marriage on these grounds and that the amendment led to contradictory pleadings, the High Court ruled that the Family Court was in error. It allowed the wife’s petition and set aside the order permitting the amendment to the husband’s original petition.
