In a significant ruling on the interplay between Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the right to remarry, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed an appeal as infructuous after the respondent remarried during the pendency of the appeal, which had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution and later restored. The Court also made a strong recommendation for legislative amendment to Section 15 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, suggesting that appellants must obtain an interim stay within two months of filing the appeal.
The Court held that persistent suspicion and doubting of a spouse’s character constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, while indifference and failure to maintain children amount to constructive desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b). On the question of remarriage during pendency of appeal, the Court analysed Section 15 and held that the bar applies only when an appeal is filed within limitation and is pending, not when it has been dismissed for default.
Drawing reference from Krishnaveni Rai v. Pangaj Rai [(2020) 11 SCC 253] and Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain [(1978) 3 SCC 258], the Court ruled that the right to remarry cannot be held hostage to the uncertain outcome of an appeal that the appellant himself was not diligent in prosecuting.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi observed that the appellant had persistently doubted the character and conduct of the respondent. He made enquiries about her with the security guard of their residential quarters, posed queries to their daughter about the person the respondent was speaking to on the phone, and even quarrelled with the respondent’s parents and made enquiries in her college when she left for Chennai on Aug 13, 2015. The respondent left the matrimonial home on Aug 15, 2015 along with the children, and the HMOP was instituted only on Oct 10, 2017. The appellant did not send any communication or issue any legal notice calling upon the respondent to rejoin, nor did he take any step for reunion or reconciliation.
The Court noted that the appellant was bound to maintain the two children but failed to do so, and a bald averment that the respondent’s parents did not allow the children to meet him was made without any supporting evidence. The Court further observed that the appellant was not at all serious about prosecuting the appeal, as he was not present when it was listed for admission, allowed it to be dismissed for default, and it was restored without noticing that the respondent had remarried. The Court also took note of the article “Post Divorce Marriages Pending Appeal” published in 45 JILI (2003) 456 by Shri C.S. Raghuraman, which surveyed various judgments, noting that most Judges had taken the view that a post-divorce marriage pending appeal is not valid.
Briefly, the appellant, R. Muthukumar, and the respondent, J.R. Lekha @ Vennila, got married on June 03, 2001 at Ramanathapuram as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent was the appellant’s maternal uncle’s daughter, and there was an 11-year age gap between them, with the respondent being in her first year of college at the time of marriage. Two children were born out of the wedlock, a girl on Jan 13, 2004 and a boy on June 08, 2006. While the appellant became a Group IV employee, the respondent pursued higher studies and acquired an M.Tech (IT) qualification, eventually joining as an Assistant Professor in a private engineering college.
Alleging that the appellant had committed cruelty and was guilty of desertion, the respondent filed petition before the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant filed a counter, and after trial, the Family Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the appellant filed application under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent remarried one Guhan Ramasamy on Aug 27, 2021, which was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Peenya, Bangalore on Sep 02, 2021.
