Back
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE
Sow. Sharda Sharad Sahane – Appellant
Versus
Sharad Uttamrao Sahane – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
1. By consent of the learned counsel of the rival parties, heard finally at admission stage.
2. The present appellant/wife has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and order dated 15/09/2021 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned first appellate court') in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.168 of 2020, whereby the application filed by the present appellant/wife for condonation of delay of 166 days in challenging the impugned order dated 29/08/2019 passed by the learned trial court i.e. 12th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, whereby marriage between the present appellant and respondent solemnized on 02/04/2013 has been dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
3. Background facts are as under :
[No cases identified as bad law. None of the case laws contain keywords or phrases indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law, such as "overruled," "reversed," or similar explicit negative treatments.]
[The following cases show no explicit judicial treatment patterns (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, questioned, overruled, reversed, or abrogated) based on the provided descriptions. Each consists solely of holdings or principles without reference to how subsequent decisions have treated them:]
Zile Singh vs Rajwanti - 2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 338: Description focuses on procedural requirements for appeals and proof in marriage claims ("Delay in appeals must be satisfactorily explained; insufficient proof of karewa marriage leads to dismissal of property claims"). No treatment keywords present.
Rakhi vs Krishnakumar - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2625: Description addresses validity of pre-divorce judgment marriages and impermissibility of conflicting amendments ("A marriage contracted before the effective date of the divorce judgment is valid and amendments creating conflicting claims are impermissible"). No treatment keywords present.
Sohan Kumar Sankhala vs Laxmi Parewa - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11793: Description covers recall of dismissal orders for absent parties ("A party absent during proceedings cannot recall a dismiss order without demonstrating a fresh cause of action"). No treatment keywords present.
Krishnaveni Rai VS Pankaj Rai - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 439: Description holds that certain marriages during appeal pendency are not void ab initio ("A marriage contracted during the pendency of an appeal from a decree of divorce is not ab initio void, especially when the appeal is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The legislative intent was not to render a valid marriage void on the filing of a belated appeal"). No treatment keywords present.
ANURAG MITTAL VS SHAILY MISHRA MITTAL - 2019 2 Supreme 129: Description covers decree status, marriage validity under Section 15, appeal withdrawal, and interpretation principles ("Decree of divorce is a judgment in rem. A marriage in contravention of the proviso to Section 15 is not void. Restriction placed on a second marriage in Section 15 till the dismissal of an appeal would not apply to a case where parties have settled and decided not to pursue the appeal. Withdrawal of a suit or application is complete with filing the application/suit for withdrawal – Order of the court is not necessary. Order of the court is necessary only where plaintiff seeks liberty to institute a fresh suit. Beneficial legislation requires purposive interpretation"). No treatment keywords present.
[No cases. All cases have clear absence of treatment indicators, categorized accordingly above with explanations based on lack of keywords or phrases signaling judicial treatment.]
The court established that a decree of divorce, whether contested or ex-parte, allows either party to remarry once the appeal period has expired, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Remarriage during the appeal period under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not invalidate an ongoing appeal, and the legality of such remarriage is to be determined at the final hearing.
Void marriage under Section 11 HMA for subsisting prior spouse upheld; admission via affidavit post-notice suffices without proving ceremonies; 654-day appeal delay not condoned for lack of bona fide....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning delay should be evaluated liberally in matrimonial cases, and prior suits do not preclude granting relief due to evolving questions.
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a leg....
The principle that a party must provide a sufficient and bona fide explanation for any delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the party is educated in law, is crucial for the court's discretion....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
