Contracting a marriage after filing of the appeal amounts to civil contempt under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

1. The present contempt petition comes up for hearing on a suo moto notice by the Division Bench initiating contempt proceedings in view of the facts which were brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench. While recording that, prima facie, the respondent is liable for having committed civil contempt of Court by indulging in unlawful marriage during pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant-wife, it was held that in the present case, the respondent-husband admittedly re-married on 18.01.2016 when the wife had already filed the appeal within limitation. The argument and the reply of the respondent that the notice of the appeal had not been served upon him was rejected in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Jasbir Kaur vs Kuljit Singh 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 929.

2. The respondent-contemner came present before the Court on 06.12.2017 and took time to file affidavit. He took three adjournments to file reply but no reply was filed and finally on 09.10.2018, last opportunity was granted. When the matter was listed on 21.11.2018, the same was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The compromise was arrived at between the parties. As per the said compromise, a total sum of Rs.4.00 lacs was to be paid by the respondent-contemner towards full and final settlement. However, when the matter was listed on 07.01.2019, Harjinder Kaur-wife came present in person and stated before the Court that she was not happy with the settlement arrived at with the respondent as she had demanded Rs.10.00 lacs on account of her responsibility to bring up a growing son but she is being made to accept only Rs.4.00 lacs.

3. The compromise having fallen through, this Court proceeded to hear the contempt petition. Reply by way of affidavit was finally filed by the contemner-respondent to the contempt proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent had got married during pendency of the appeal. As per the said reply filed by way of an affidavit, the respondent-husband did not receive any summons from this Court till 08.02.2016 and he was served with the summons by the learned Court at Patiala when he came present to attend the proceedings pending with regard to the case of maintenance in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, whereas, the contemner had already performed marriage on 18.01.2016. The divorce was granted by the Court on 13.07.2015 and he performed the second marriage on 18.01.2016 after six months of the passing of the order. No notice was served upon him at any point of time. It was not in his knowledge that the petitioner has preferred any appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree granted by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. It was further stated that operation of the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2015 had never been stayed.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

5. It is admitted that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The appeal having been filed within the period of limitation, the circumstances of the present case would be governed under the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity,'the 1955 Act').

6. Section 15 of the 1955 Act reads as under:-

“15 Divorced persons when may marry again.- .When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.”

7. The respondent-husband has admitted that he re-married on 18.01.2016 when the wife had already filed appeal within limitation. In view of the provisions of Section 15, it was not lawful for the respondent to re-marry. The plea of the respondent-husband that he was not served with the notice deserves to be rejected in view of the judgment rendered by t