Punjab & Haryana High Court Sentences Man To 3 Months In Jail Over Second Marriage Despite Pending Appeal Against Divorce

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held a husband guilty of civil contempt for contracting a second marriage during the pendency of his wife's appeal against the divorce decree—an act done despite the High Court's stay order and in violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and imposed a ₹2,000 fine, directing him to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar, within 15 days.

Justice Alka Sarin said, "The act and conduct of the respondent-husband is such that the clock cannot be put back and the damage which has ensued cannot be rectified. Virtually, the conduct of respondent-husband has rendered the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife infructuous and the petitioner-wife being remediless. The petitioner-wife and her daughter have even missed out the chance to partake in any reconciliation process."

The contempt petition was filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of the High Court's order dated 13 August 2020.

The couple married in December 2012 and have a daughter. After the husband obtained a divorce decree on 2 March 2020, the wife filed an appeal on 12 March 2020—within limitation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was eventually taken up on 15 June 2020, and the decree was stayed on 13 August 2020.

The Court noted that the husband had been successfully served at the same address in earlier proceedings, including in the wife's prior appeal. However, in the present appeal, he avoided service. He appeared only in 2023 and filed a reply in 2024, admitting his second marriage.

His defence—that he had no knowledge of the appeal or stay order, and that improper service absolved him—was rejected.

Relying on the Division Bench judgment in Jasbir Kaur v. Kuljit Singh (2008), the Court reiterated that, Filing an appeal within limitation automatically bars remarriage under Section 15 HMA.

Justice Sarin opined that, a second marriage after filing of an appeal amounts to willful disobedience of “other process of the Court”, constituting civil contempt.

It added that, the right of appeal is a substantive right, and any act that defeats the possibility of appellate scrutiny and reconciliation violates the administration of justice.

The Court also referred to its decisions in Court on its Motion v. Munish, Court on its Motion v. Jagdeep Pal Singh, and to the Supreme Court's ruling in N. Rajendran v. S. Valli (2025), which affirmed that the bar on remarriage applies as soon as an appeal is filed, not only after service.

Although the husband tendered an unconditional apology after the Court pointed out the breach, the Court declined to accept it, holding that the second marriage rendered the wife's appeal “virtually infructuous.”

The wife and child lost the opportunity for reconciliation and the misconduct struck at the “sanctity of rule of law," said the Court.

It added that, "the conduct of the respondent-husband in contracting a second marriage after filing of the appeal by the petitioner-wife within the prescribed period of limitation and a stay having been granted therein, amounts to civil contempt and accordingly he is held guilty for commission of the same. The sanctity of rule of law and the brazen breach and non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court cannot be taken lightly."

Finding wilful violation of Section 15 HMA and the Court's stay order, the Court held the husband guilty of civil contempt and imposed simple imprisonment: 3 months and fine of ₹2,000.

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXX v. XXX