JUDGMENT

OZA, J. :— This appeal after leave has been filed by the appellant wife arising out of a decree under S. 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a decree declaring the marriage a nullity.

2. The respondent husband instituted a petition on 7th March, 1984 for a declaration that the marriage of the respondent with the appellant wife was a nullity under sub-sec. (1), sub-clause (d) of S. 12 of the Act on the ground that appellant, the wife at the time of marriage with the respondent was pregnant by some one other than the respondent. The appellant wife contested the allegations and ultimately the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur granted a decree in favour of the respondent by his judgment dated 3rd May, 1985 declaring the marriage to be a nullity.

3. The appellant wife filed a regular Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1985 on 19-7-1985 before the IInd Additional District Judge, Nagpur. Before this appeal could be filed, the respondent husband married one Miss Sarita daughter of Laxmanrao Modak on 27-6-1985, and in the appeal filed by the appellant, the respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1985 by the trial Court he has married Sarita daughter of Laxmanrao Modak on 27-6-1985. It was further alleged in the application that this marriage was solemnised on 27-6-1985 when there was no impediment against the respondent husband which could come in his way for contracting this marriage as the parties were relegated to the position as if they were not married and therefore this marriage performed on 27-6-1985 of respondent with Sarita was legal and valid and the consequence of this is that the appeal filed by the appellant was not tenable having been rendered infructuous. The IInd Additional District Judge, Nagpur vide his order dated 17-8-1985 allowed the objection of the respondent and dismissed the appeal as infructuous with a direction to the parties to bear their own respective costs.

4. Against this the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 20-2-1987 (reported in AIR 1987 Bom 231) dismissed the appeal holding that as the appeal was filed by the appellant after the re-marriage of the respondent it has become infructuous. The learned Judge also dismissed the application for maintenance pendente lite and aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court after obtaining leave this appeal is filed in this Court.

5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the language of S. 15 clearly goes to show that it refers to a marriage which has been dissolved and it also talks of right of appeal against the decree. In view of this language used in S. 15 it is not possible to distinguish between a decree of nullity under S. 11 or 12 and decree of divorce under S. 13. It was contended that the word divorce has been used in this provision in a broader sense indicating that where the marriage is dissolved or the relationship is brought to an end by decree of Court whether it is by declaring the marriage invalid or dissolving it by a decree but result is the same and it was contended that it is because of this that in this Act there is neither any specific definition provided for the term divorce or a decree of divorce. It was also contended that when language of S. 15 refers to a right of appeal (one) will have to look to the provision providing for an appeal and S. 28 of the Act which provides for appeals against all decrees made by the Court in proceedings under this Act. It was therefore contended that the interpretation put by the lower Court on the basis of judgment of some of the High Courts that S. 15 will not apply to a decree under S. 12 but would only apply when there is a decree under S. 13 does not appear to be the correct view and on this basis it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below were wrong in coming to the conclusi