High Court Rules That Endless Delay in Remarriage Violates Spousal Rights -

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant ruling that may alter the process by which a separated partner can remarry after legal separation. The court has established that a spouse cannot be subjected to an indefinite waiting period due to the court’s inability to reach a decision on an appeal within the specified time frame. This judgment has far-reaching implications for spousal rights and the legal procedures that govern the dissolution of marriages.

The observation

A spouse cannot be held guilty of contempt for his/her obligation not to perform the marriage when the appellate court itself fails to perform its own obligation of deciding the appeal within the stipulated time.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan delivered a ruling on a contempt petition that accused the respondent’s wife of engaging in a second marriage while an appeal was pending against the judgment and decree that granted her a divorce. Advocates Pushpinder Kaushal and Sarju Puri aided the bench in reviewing the case. This judgment has significant implications for the legality of remarriage during the pendency of an appeal and the consequences that may result from such actions.

Justice Sangwan cited Section 21B(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates that an appeal must be resolved expeditiously, within three months. This provision imposes a responsibility on the appellate court to dispose of the appeal in a timely manner since Section 15 prohibits the spouse who was granted a divorce decree from remarrying.

Justice Sangwan further stated that there cannot be an indefinite waiting period for a spouse to remarry. He noted the specifics of the case, observing that notices were distributed in November 2008, and the appeal was admitted during the same month. Despite more than a decade has passed, the appeal had not been resolved, despite the appellate court being obligated to dispose of it within three months. This ruling has significant implications for the prompt resolution of appeals and the protection of spousal rights.

Justice Sangwan distinguished the current case from previous judgments by emphasizing that none of them addressed the requirement for expeditious disposal under Section 21B(3).

Justice Sangwan argued that a spouse could not be charged with contempt for failing to fulfill their obligation not to remarry when the appellate court did not fulfill its own obligation. The respondent, in this instance, remarried approximately ten years after the trial court issued the divorce decree and cannot be held accountable for civil contempt because the High Court did not dispose of the appeal within the stipulated timeframe specified in Section 21B of the Act. This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of spousal rights in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act and the consequences that may result from violations of those rights.

“Though there is no dispute that the violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case when there is no specific restraint order from remarrying after the three months period expired under Section 21B(3) for disposal of the appeal, considering that the respondent waited for 10 years and ultimately decided to move on to secure her future and performed the second marriage, no wilful disobedience is made out,” Justice Sangwan added.