“A marriage contracted on the very day a divorce decree is passed cannot be branded void, unless the decree itself is challenged,” ruled the Kerala High Court, making it clear that Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) does not nullify such unions in all circumstances.
The Case concerned a couple married in December 2007. The husband filed a divorce petition in 2023, later seeking to amend his pleadings after discovering that his wife’s previous marriage had been dissolved by a mutual consent decree on the very same day of their wedding. He claimed the marriage took place at 10 a.m., while the decree was delivered later in the day, and argued that their marriage was therefore void under Section 15 of the HMA. The Family Court permitted the amendment, allowing the husband to simultaneously pursue reliefs for divorce from a valid marriage and for a declaration that the marriage was void. The wife challenged this order before the High Court.
The Counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court wrongly permitted inconsistent reliefs without deleting earlier prayers. They stressed that under the law, a judgment becomes operative from the date it is signed and not from the time of the day, making the plea of “pre-decree marriage” baseless.
The respondent counsel maintained that under Section 15 of the HMA, a person can remarry only after the expiry of the appeal period. Since the decree dissolving the wife’s first marriage was passed on the same day as her second marriage, he contended their union was unlawful. He argued that he was entitled to pursue alternative reliefs, even if conflicting.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha noted that Section 15 of the HMA bars remarriage only if an appeal is filed or remains possible, but does not render such marriages void in all circumstances. Where the decree of divorce is unchallenged, only the former spouse has the locus to dispute a subsequent marriage.
While rejecting the plea based on “timing,” the Court clarified that judgments take effect from the commencement of the day they are dated and signed, not from the hour of pronouncement. It further criticised the Family Court for allowing contradictory pleadings, as the husband’s original petition admitted the validity of the marriage while the amendment sought to declare it void.
The Court allowed the wife’s petition and set aside the Family Court’s order permitting the amendment. It held that her marriage could not be declared void merely because it was contracted on the same day the divorce decree dissolving her earlier marriage was passed, especially when the decree had never been challenged by her former spouse.
Case Title: Rakhi Vs. Krishnakumar And Ors.
Case No: OP (FC) No. 409 OF 2025
Coram: Justice Devan Ramachandran And Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Johnson Gomez, Sanjay Johnson
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. .K.R.Arun Krishnan, M.S.Ajithkumar, Deepa K.Radhakrishnan
Picture Source :
