The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sentenced a husband to three months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt, holding him guilty of willfully disobeying a court order by contracting a second marriage while his first wife’s appeal against their divorce decree was pending.
The High Court was adjudicating a contempt petition filed by the petitioner-wife, alleging that the respondent-husband had remarried despite a stay order on the divorce decree and the pendency of her appeal. Justice Alka Sarin ruled that the respondent’s conduct in contracting a second marriage after the filing of the appeal within the limitation period amounted to “willful and intentional disobedience” of the Court’s process.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on December 9, 2012, according to Hindu rites at Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar. A female child was born from the wedlock.
On March 2, 2020, the Family Court, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, granted a decree of divorce in favor of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Aggrieved by this decree, the wife preferred an appeal (FAO-1935-2020) before the High Court on March 12, 2020. The appeal was filed well within the statutory period of limitation.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was heard on June 15, 2020, and notice was issued. Subsequently, on August 13, 2020, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree.
According to the contempt petition, the respondent-husband contracted a second marriage on January 3, 2021. The petitioner alleged that this act constituted a willful disobedience of the order dated August 13, 2020.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner-wife, Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, contended that the appeal was filed within the limitation period. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in Jasbir Kaur vs. Kuljit Singh [2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 929], it was argued that “irrespective of the fact that the husband has knowledge and whether the summon has been served or not, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 no person can re-marry till the period of filing of an appeal has expired or the appeal having been presented has been dismissed.”
The petitioner submitted that the right to appeal is a substantive right under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and “if any element of that right is defeated by an act of holder of a decree of divorce then it would constitute willful disobedience of other process of the Court.” It was further argued that by contracting a second marriage, the chance of reconciliation was defeated.
Respondent’s Submissions: The respondent-husband, represented by Mr. Saket Bhandari, argued that he was never served in the appeal and only became aware of the proceedings when an FIR was lodged regarding his second marriage. He contended that he could not be held guilty of contempt due to the fault of the Process Server.
The respondent admitted to the second marriage in his reply filed on September 18, 2024. During the proceedings, he tendered an unqualified apology. His counsel cited several judgments, including Sheetal Patil vs. Sandeep Patil and Suresh and Others vs. Imran Khan, to support the defense that lack of service should absolve him of contempt liability.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Alka Sarin rejected the respondent’s defense, observing that the appeal was filed within the limitation period and the respondent had evaded service on the same address provided by him in his own divorce petition.
The Court relied heavily on the Division Bench ruling in Jasbir Kaur, which established that:
“According to Section 15 of the Act, a party to the dissolved marriage could marry again if period of filing an appeal has expired or the appeal has been dismissed. It necessarily implies that the decree holder has to make inquiries that no appeal has been filed within the period of limitation or that the appeal has been dismissed. Such a spouse cannot sit at home and wait the summons to come because service of summons may not necessarily be effected on the winning spouse within the period limitation.”
The Court also referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in N. Rajendran vs. S. Valli [(2025) 3 SCC 801], which held that “the bar on re-marriage under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after divorce will apply on mere filing of an appeal.”
Regarding the respondent’s claim of non-service, the Court noted:
“Even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-husband as regards the fact that respondent-husband was not served in the appeal is to be taken on its face value, he admittedly never made inquiries within the prescribed period of limitation regarding filing of the appeal.”
The Court declined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent. Justice Sarin observed:
“The apology in the present case cannot be accepted for the reason that there has been willful contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
Highlighting the impact of the respondent’s actions, the Court stated:
“The act and conduct of the respondent-husband is such that the clock cannot be put back and the damage which has ensued cannot be rectified. Virtually, the conduct of respondent-husband has rendered the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife infructuous and the petitioner-wife being remediless.”
Decision
The High Court held the respondent-husband guilty of civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Pronouncing the sentence, the Court ordered:
“He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of ₹2,000/-. The respondent-husband shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri within a period of 15 days from the date of this order and he shall be sent to judicial custody to undergo the sentence as stated above.”
The Court emphasized that the “sanctity of rule of law and the brazen breach and non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court cannot be taken lightly.”
