Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Second Marriage During Appeal of Divorce Decree: Krishnaveni Rai vs. Pankaj Rai (2020) INSC 191 (19 February 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 191
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a second marriage be considered void if it takes place while an appeal against a divorce decree is pending? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a dispute over maintenance. The court clarified that a second marriage is not automatically void if the appeal against the divorce decree was filed after the limitation period, especially if there was no stay on the divorce decree’s operation. This judgment has significant implications for individuals seeking maintenance and for understanding the validity of marriages during pending appeals.

Case Background

The case revolves around the marriage of Krishnaveni Rai (the Appellant) and Pankaj Rai (Respondent No. 1). The Appellant had previously been married to Arvind Chenjee, which ended in a divorce decree on 28 June 2005. The limitation period for appealing this decree expired on 26 September 2005. However, the Appellant filed an appeal in August 2006, which was much after the limitation period. This delay was condoned on 13 July 2007, but the decree of divorce was not stayed. In 2006, Arvind Chenjee remarried. The Appellant’s appeal was eventually withdrawn on 2 September 2016.

On 13 December 2014, the Appellant married the Respondent No. 1. Unfortunately, this marriage also faced difficulties, with the Appellant alleging harassment and cruelty. Consequently, she filed a complaint against the Respondent No. 1 under Sections 406, 498A, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). She also filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

In response, the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit seeking a declaration that his marriage with the Appellant was void, arguing that it took place while an appeal against the Appellant’s first divorce was pending. The lower court dismissed the Appellant’s maintenance application, stating that her marriage with Respondent No. 1 was a nullity.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the Appellant’s application for maintenance, holding that her marriage with the Respondent No. 1 was void. The High Court of Telangana upheld this decision. The High Court also quashed criminal proceedings against the Respondent No. 1 under Sections 406, 498A, and 500 of the IPC, on the same ground of the marriage being a nullity. The Appellant then filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, challenging the order dismissing her application for maintenance, which was also dismissed.

However, the Family Court had earlier allowed the Appellant’s application for pendente lite maintenance, ordering the Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 20,000 per month. This order was upheld by the High Court in a separate Civil Revision Petition. The Supreme Court then took up the matter, addressing the core issue of whether a second marriage during a pending appeal of a divorce decree is void.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

• Section 5: This section outlines the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage. It states that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage, among other conditions.
• Section 11: This section states that a marriage is void if it contravenes conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv), and (v) of Section 5.
• Section 15: This section specifies when divorced persons can remarry. It allows remarriage when there is no right of appeal against the divorce decree, when the time for appeal has expired without an appeal, or when an appeal has been presented and dismissed. The court noted that Section 15 does not explicitly state that a marriage during the pendency of an appeal is void.

The Court emphasized that only contravention of certain conditions under Section 5 renders a marriage void under Section 11. Specifically, a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse, or if the parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship, or are sapindas of each other, unless custom permits. Contravention of other conditions under Section 5, such as age or consent, makes the marriage voidable, not void.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The Appellant argued that her marriage with Respondent No. 1 was valid, as her divorce with her first husband was already in effect and the appeal was filed after the limitation period.
• She contended that the bar of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply in her case, since the appeal was filed after the expiry of the limitation period.
• She further argued that maintenance cannot be denied on the ground of nullity of marriage until there is a declaration of nullity by a competent court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Respondent contended that the marriage was void because it was solemnized while an appeal against the decree of dissolution of the Appellant’s first marriage was pending.
• He argued that the Appellant’s marriage to him was in contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the appeal against the divorce decree was pending at the time of their marriage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the Appellant could be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC on the ground that her marriage with the Respondent No. 1 was a nullity because the marriage had taken place while an appeal filed by the Appellant against a decree of dissolution of marriage with her first husband was still pending.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the marriage of the Appellant with the Respondent No. 1 was not void. The Court stated that the bar under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only if an appeal is filed within the period of limitation. The Court also emphasized that the appeal filed by the Appellant was after the expiry of the limitation period and there was no stay on the decree of divorce.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018) 9 SCC 691* which held that the object of Section 15 is to protect the person who filed an appeal against the decree of dissolution of marriage and to ensure that such appeal was not frustrated.
• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain (1978) 3 SCC 258* which held that a marriage contracted during a prescribed period will not be void because it was contracted under an incapacity. The prohibition against one of the parties from contracting a second marriage for a certain period is not to nullify the divorce and continue the dissolved marriage, as if the same were subsisting.
• The Court interpreted Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955* to specify the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage.
• The Court interpreted Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955* to specify the conditions under which a marriage is void.
• The Court interpreted Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955* to specify when divorced persons may remarry.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the fact that the appeal against the divorce decree was filed after the limitation period. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was not to render a marriage void if the appeal was filed belatedly, especially when there was no stay on the divorce decree. The Court also relied on previous decisions to clarify that a second marriage is not automatically void if it occurs during a period of incapacity but is not explicitly declared void by law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the second marriage should not be considered void simply because an appeal was filed late. The Court also noted that the appeal was infructuous, since the Appellant’s ex-husband had remarried after the expiry of the limitation period. The Court observed that the legislative intent was not to render a marriage void if the appeal was filed belatedly, especially when there was no stay on the divorce decree. The Court also relied on previous decisions to clarify that a second marriage is not automatically void if it occurs during a period of incapacity but is not explicitly declared void by law.

The Court quoted the following excerpts from the judgment:

“Had it been the legislative intent that a marriage during the pendency of an appeal should be declared void, Section 11 would expressly have provided so.”

“The bar, if any, under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only if there is an appeal filed within the period of limitation, and not afterwards upon condonation of delay in filing an appeal unless of course, the decree of divorce is stayed or there is an interim order of Court, restraining the parties or any of them from remarrying during the pendency of the appeal.”

“It could never have been the legislative intent that a marriage validly contracted after the divorce and after expiry of the period of limitation to file an appeal from the decree of divorce should rendered void on the filing of a belated appeal.”

Key Takeaways

• A second marriage is not automatically void if it occurs while an appeal against a divorce decree is pending, especially if the appeal is filed after the limitation period and there is no stay on the divorce decree.
• Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not render a marriage void if it occurs during a belated appeal.
• Maintenance cannot be denied solely on the ground that a second marriage is void due to a pending appeal filed after the limitation period.
• The legislative intent of Section 15 is to protect the person who filed the appeal within the period of limitation, not to invalidate marriages that occur after the limitation period.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the application for maintenance to the appropriate court for determination. The Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as interim maintenance and a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards arrears, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second marriage is not void if it is performed after the divorce and after the expiry of the period of limitation to file an appeal from the decree of divorce, even if a belated appeal is filed. This clarifies the position of law regarding the validity of second marriages during the pendency of appeals against divorce decrees, particularly when the appeal is filed after the limitation period. This judgment reinforces the principle that the law does not intend to invalidate marriages that occur after the divorce is effective and the time to appeal has expired.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishnaveni Rai vs. Pankaj Rai clarifies that a second marriage is not void if it takes place while an appeal against a divorce decree is pending, provided the appeal was filed after the limitation period and there was no stay on the divorce decree. This ruling protects the rights of individuals in second marriages and ensures that maintenance claims are not dismissed on the basis of a belated appeal. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing appeals and provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.