In a significant ruling, the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging an ex-parte divorce decree granted to her husband, who passed away during the pendency of the case. The bench, comprising Justices Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla, held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against a deceased person.
Background
The appellant, Premvati Patel, also known as Asha Patel, had filed an appeal under the Family Courts Act, 1984, against an ex-parte Judgment dated April 6, 2015. The decree, passed by the Family Court in Jabalpur, had dissolved her marriage with Ashok Kumar Verma, which took place in June 1990.
The twist emerged when it was revealed that the respondent-husband had died in December 2024. The appellant subsequently filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), requesting the court to appoint someone to represent the deceased husband’s estate since, she claimed, there were no legal heirs.
Court's Observations
The court, however, found contradictions in the appellant’s arguments. Her counsel argued that Order 22 of the CPC - which deals with the death of a party during proceedings did not apply to divorce cases, as they are not traditional 'suits”'but petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act. Simultaneously, he pleaded for the appointment of an administrator under Order 22 Rule 4A to represent the husband's estate.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Bid Rejection in Maha Mineral Case, Orders Fresh Review on Washery Capacity
The bench did not accept this. It clarified that while divorce cases are indeed initiated by petition, the procedural rules of the CPC still apply as per Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the provisions of Order 22 are relevant.
More importantly, the court noted that the appellant own application under the Limitation Act mentioned that other people were occupying her late husband's house and preventing her from entering. This, the Judges pointed out, indicated that there were individuals representing the estate of the deceased.
"These persons are representing the property and estate of the deceased," the bench observed,
making the provision for appointing an administrator irrelevant.
The court relied on a Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Yallawwa vs. Shantawa, which holds that matrimonial proceedings themselves do not survive after the death of a spouse. The cause of action for dissolving a marriage is personal and ends with death. Only claims against the property of the deceased can continue, and that too must be pursued against legal representatives.
Decision
The court found that the appellant's real intent was to restore her status as a wife to claim a right over her deceased husband's property. However, since the appeal was filed against a man who was already dead, and no application was made to bring his legal representatives on record, the court had no option.
"Appeal was filed against a dead person, therefore, same is not maintainable," the bench stated bluntly.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, closing the legal chapter on a marriage that ended first by decree and then by death.
Case Title: Premvati Patel @ Asha Patel vs. Ashok Kumar Verma
Case Number: First Appeal No. 838 of 2025 (FA-838-2025)
