The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has dismissed a challenge against a divorce decree, holding that the appeal had become infructuous after the divorced spouse remarried while the appeal had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi also examined the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with when a divorced person may legally remarry. The judgment was delivered on August 13, 2026, in C.M.A.(MD) No.672 of 2021.
Background of the Case
Parties were married on June 3, 2001, and had two children. Wife later approached the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court allowed her petition and dissolved the marriage by order dated March 3, 2021.
Husband challenged that decision before the High Court. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s notice that Wife had remarried on August 27, 2021. The marriage was registered on September 2, 2021.
Court’s Findings on Cruelty and Desertion
The Bench agreed with the Family Court’s assessment that the evidence showed serious suspicion regarding Wife's character and conduct. The judgment noted that Husband had made enquiries about her and had also questioned their daughter about the person with whom she was speaking on the phone.
The Court observed:
“Doubting one's character would constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Bench further found that Husband had not taken meaningful steps towards reconciliation after Wife left the matrimonial home. It noted that he neither sent a communication asking her to return nor issued a legal notice for reunion. The Court held that his indifference, together with failure to maintain the children, amounted to constructive desertion.
Section 15 and Remarriage During Appeal
The Bench then considered whether Wife's remarriage affected the pending appeal. It noted that the divorce decree had never been stayed and that the appeal itself had been dismissed for non-prosecution on November 5, 2025, before being restored on March 30, 2026.
Discussing Section 15, the Court referred to Supreme Court decisions including N. Rajendran v. S. Valli and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pangaj Rai. It observed that an appeal filed within limitation has significance under Section 15, but also considered the position where an appeal is dismissed for default.
The Bench stated:
“Since Section 15 places restriction on this right, it has to be construed strictly.”
The Court also expressed the view that Section 15 may deserve legislative reconsideration, suggesting that merely filing an appeal within time should perhaps not be sufficient and that an interim stay could be required within a specified period.
Decision
The Bench held that once the appeal had been dismissed for default, Section 15 lost its effect in the circumstances before it. It said that when the restoration proceedings revealed that the respondent had already remarried, the appeal had to be treated as infructuous, irrespective of when the remarriage occurred.
The Madras High Court therefore dismissed the appeal with its observations.
