Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Roshan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Veena Rani – Respondent
C.O.C.P. Nos. 219-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the Respondent

The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Section 15 and Section 21B(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and their implications on the obligation to remarry and the duty of the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Second Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 15, 21B - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows a party to remarry after the expiry of the appeal period or after the dismissal of an appeal. The court also considered Section 21B(3) of the Act, which imposes an obligation on the Appellate Court to decide the appeal within three months. The judgment in 'Jasbir Kaur Vs. Kuljit Singh' and other cases were referenced to establish the legal framework for willful disobedience and civil contempt in the context of second marriage during the pendency of an appeal. The court emphasized the distinction between the provisions of Section 15 and Section 21B(3) and their implications on the obligation to remarry and the duty of the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner alleged that the respondent-wife performed a second marriage during the pendency of an appeal challenging the decree of divorce in her favor. The petitioner contended that this act amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that no willful disobedience of the order was made out due to the following reasons: a) The appeal was not decided within the stipulated three months as per Section 21B(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, b) The absence of a specific stay order restraining the respondent from remarrying, c) The delay in deciding the appeal, and d) The respondent's wait of 10 years before remarrying. The court dismissed the contempt petition and quashed the criminal complaint against the respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the obligation of the Appellate Court under Section 21B(3), and the determination of willful disobedience and civil contempt in the context of a second marriage during the pendency of an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the distinction between the provisions of Section 15 and Section 21B(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the duty of the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within three months. The court held that the delay in deciding the appeal and the absence of a specific stay order restrained the application of Section 15 in the present circumstances.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the criminal complaint against the respondent was quashed.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - The present contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondent-wife has performed second marriage during the pendency of FAO No.290-M-2008 vide which the petitioner-husband has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2008 granting decree of divorce in favour of respondent-wife.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the following certain dates and events are relevant in the present case :-

4.11.2005	The marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent.
4.7.2006	The respondent alleging cruelty and desertion filed an FIR under Sections 406, 498-A, IPC against the petitioner.
27.8.2006	A girl child was born out of this wedlock.
16.9.2006	The respondent filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses were also filed.
9.1.2008	The maintenance pendente lite was awarded from the date of application, i.e. 29.7.2006.
5.8.2008	As the petitioner-husband failed to clear the arrears approximately Rs.58,000/-, his defence was struck off.
19.8.2008	The trial Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of respondentwife.
7.11.2008	Though no specific date of filing is there, however, the petitioner filed the aforesaid FAO-M-290-2008.
27.11.200 8	High Court issued notice of motion, as counsel for the appellant stated that arrears of maintenance of Rs.58,000/- will be paid within four months by installments of Rs.15,000/- per month.
18.8.2010	In an application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month was awarded, apart from the litigation expenses and it was directed that the arrears of Rs.21,000/-will be paid before 31.10.2010. Thereafter, the case was fixed before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
18.11.2010	The aforesaid appeal was admitted to be listed within one year. However, till date the same is not decided and is pending.
4.11.2012	The order of maintenance was clarified to the extent that it is only for the minor child.
23.9.2018	The petitioner alleges that respondent-wife has performed second marriage which amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
1.10.2018	A girl child was born out of the second wedlock.

Both girls are living in care and custody of respondent and her husband.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent has committed civil contempt within the ambit of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SBS Nagar, in which in a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner the respondent is summoned to face the trial under Section 494 IPC. The said order is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in 'Jasbir Kaur Vs. Kuljit Singh', 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 929 to submit that where an appeal is filed by one of the spouse within the period of limitation challenging a degree of divorce granted in favour of other spouse and during pending of appeal one of the spouse contract second marriage, it is unlawful under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and amounts to willful disobedience to the 'other process of the Court' and is civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 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 eithe