The interim order's expiration allowed the respondent to remarry, leading to criticism of his conduct but no grounds to annul the marriage as legally valid.

1. CAN 1 of 2024 is an application for stay/ restraint order on the respondent/husband from remarrying.

2. The appellant arises at the behest of the appellant/wife against a decree of divorce passed in favour of the respondent/husband.

3. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that by an order dated September 9, 2024, a coordinate Bench had directed the respondent/husband not to solemnize marriage till the next date, fixing the next date for hearing on November 11, 2024.

4. However, the matter did not automatically appear in the list on the returnable date.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite mentioning, the application was not included in the list previously.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the specific restraint order vide September 9, 2024 was for the respondent/husband not to solemnize marriage “till the next date”.

7. The next date being November 11, 2024, the said interim order expired on that date.

8. It is submitted that the appellant did not take any measures for having the matter enlisted or for having the interim order extended and, as such, the respondent/husband was at liberty to remarry.

9. A supplementary affidavit is filed today on behalf of the appellant, pointing out that the remarriage was contracted by the respondent on February 16, 2025.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that although technically the respondent/husband was not debarred from remarrying after November 11, 2024, till which date, strictly speaking, the direction on the respondent not to solemnize marriage was passed, the intention of the coordinate Bench in passing such order was definitely that the husband does not contract any remarriage in the meantime.

11. The court had restricted the order till the next date under the obvious impression that the matter would next be listed on November 11, 2024.

12. The same having not been listed, even in the absence of any visible endeavour by the wife to have the interim order extended, the obvious conclusion would be that the appellant now suffers due to the deficiency on the part of the judicial mechanism in having the matter listed on the next returnable date.

13. Thus, broadly, the matter comes within the purview of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit.

14. There can also be an alternative interpretation, that the expression “next date” meant not the returnable fixed by the court but the next date on which the matter would be taken up for hearing.

15. However, at this juncture, we are not equipped with any legal provision to declare the second marriage of the husband void or voidable as per the existent law, since it may be construed that technically the marriage was solemnized at a period when, although the appeal was pending, there was no subsisting order of injunction.

16. Yet, we cannot but mention the deplorable conduct of the respondent/husband in contracting the second marriage in hot haste without the leave of the court, despite full knowledge of the pendency of an appeal against the divorce decree as well as being aware that an interim order was passed at the inception restraining him from contracting such remarriage.

17. We deprecate such action of the respondent strongly.

18. However, in view of the second marriage, CAN 1 of

2024 has been rendered infructuous.

19. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of as infructuous without any order as to costs.

20. It is made abundantly clear that the respondent/husband having taken a calculated and deliberate risk by contracting remarriage during pendency of the appeal and having full knowledge of the previous order of ad interim injunction, the second marriage shall