In a consequential legal decision that has the potential to affect the manner in which a separated spouse enters into a new marriage subsequent to the dissolution of the previous marriage, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an individual cannot be subjected to indefinite waiting periods due to the court’s inability to render a decision within the prescribed timeframe.
The observation
A spouse cannot be held guilty of contempt for his/her obligation not to perform marriage, when the appellate court itself fails to perform its own obligation of deciding the appeal within the stipulated time.
Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan issued the decision in response to a contempt petition filed by the petitioner-husband, who alleged that the respondent-wife had entered into a second marriage while the petitioner-husband’s appeal against the judgment and decree granting divorce to her was still pending. Advocates Pushpinder Kaushal and Sarju Puri assisted the Bench in the proceedings.
Justice Sangwan emphasized that Section 21B(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates that an appeal should be resolved promptly within a period of three months. This provision places a responsibility and obligation on the appellate court to decide the appeal within a specified timeframe, as Section 15 prohibits the spouse who was granted the decree of divorce from contracting another marriage.
Justice Sangwan stated that there cannot be an unlimited period for a spouse to remain unmarried. Justice Sangwan made these observations in relation to the facts of the case, where notices were served in November 2008 and the appeal was accepted in the same month. Despite the appellate court’s obligation to dispose of the case within three months, more than a decade has elapsed, and the appeal has not yet been resolved.
Justice Sangwan distinguished the present case from previous court judgments, stating that they did not refer to Section 21B(3) regarding the prompt disposal of appeals.
Justice Sangwan emphasized that it would be unjust to hold a spouse in contempt for not fulfilling their obligation to refrain from marrying when the appellate court itself failed to fulfill its obligation to resolve the appeal promptly. In this case, the respondent had entered into a marriage around ten years after the trial court had issued the divorce decree, and therefore could not be held in civil contempt for the High Court’s failure to dispose of the appeal within the time limit set out in Section 21B of the Act.
“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.