The Kerala High Court has ruled that a judgment takes effect from the commencement of the day it is delivered and not from the specific time of its pronouncement. A Division Bench set aside a Family Court order that had allowed a husband to amend his divorce petition to seek a declaration that his marriage was void based on the argument that his wife’s prior divorce decree was granted a few hours after their wedding ceremony on the same day.
The bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, held that allowing the amendment created contradictory pleadings and was based on a flawed interpretation of when a judgment becomes operative.
Case Background
The case originated from a divorce petition, O.P.(HMA)No.29/2023, filed by a husband against his wife before the Family Court, South Paravoor. The parties were married on December 28, 2007. While the petition was pending, the husband filed an application to amend his pleadings. He contended that he had discovered his wife’s divorce decree from her first marriage was also granted on December 28, 2007, but at a time later than their wedding ceremony. He argued that the marriage took place at 10 A.M., while the judgment dissolving her first marriage was delivered after 11 A.M., when civil courts commence their daily schedule. On this basis, he sought to add a plea for a declaration that his marriage to the petitioner was void. The Family Court allowed this amendment, which the wife then challenged before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-wife, represented by Advocate Johnson Gomez, argued that the amendment was “illegal and impermissible.” It was contended that the husband’s original petition admitted a valid marriage and sought divorce, but the amendment introduced an incongruous plea that the marriage was null and void. The wife’s counsel described the husband’s claim as a “misadventurous scheme” and asserted that, in law, “the effect of a judgment starts from the commencement of the day it is delivered and not from the time it is so.”
The respondent-husband, through Advocate K.R. Arun Krishnan, countered that he was unaware at the time of filing for divorce in 2018 that the wife’s previous divorce decree was granted on their wedding day. He argued he was justified in seeking the amendment as he was entitled to seek alternative, even conflicting, reliefs. He further invoked Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, submitting that the wife could not have lawfully remarried until the time for appealing her first divorce decree had expired.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal position regarding the operative time of a judgment. The bench found the husband’s contention that the judgment took effect only after 11 A.M. to be legally unsound. The court clarified the established legal principle, stating, “Ineluctably, therefore, once the judgment is pronounced/delivered, it takes effect immediately and operates from the commencement of the day it was so pronounced or delivered.”
The judgment referenced Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), noting that Rule 3 requires a judgment to be dated and signed at the time of pronouncement, and Rule 7 mandates that the decree shall bear the date the judgment was delivered. The Court observed, “No judgment or decree statutorily requires to carry an endorsement of the time it was delivered, since no law provides for it.”
Regarding the argument under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court noted that the wife’s first divorce was obtained by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, making the chance of an appeal “remote.” The court also questioned the husband’s legal standing to challenge the validity of the second marriage on these grounds, observing that a legal challenge might be available to the wife’s former husband, who had not initiated one. “When there is no challenge by the petitioner’s former husband to her subsequent marriage,” the bench stated, “we fail to fathom how the 1st respondent can now say that her marriage with him is null and void.”
Finally, the High Court concurred with the wife’s counsel that the amendment created “two antipodean streams” of pleadings. The original prayer sought divorce based on a valid marriage, while the new prayer sought a declaration of nullity. The court pointed out that the application did “not seek amendments to be as alternative reliefs, but as substantive prayers; but without deleting the earlier ones.”
Decision
Concluding that the Family Court ought not to have allowed the amendment application, the High Court allowed the wife’s Original Petition and set aside the impugned order.
