The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed an order setting aside ex-parte divorce decree which was challenged by the wife after 680-day delay, noting that the trial court failed to assign reasons for condoning delay and did not consider the consequences of the husband's subsequent remarriage.

In this context, Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with the right of divorced persons to remarry after the decree becomes final, including where the statutory period for filing an appeal expires without an appeal being filed.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the trial court had failed to justify condoning the delay, warranting interference. It clarified that the wife could still claim any statutory entitlements available to her under law.

The Court observed:

“In the case at hand, as referred supra, an application to condone the delay and an application to set aside the ex parte decree were filed after the husband had remarried and was blessed with a female child. The learned trial court failed to consider the said aspect and the expressions of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to supra while condoning the delay and also setting aside the ex parte decree.

Apart from the same, the trial court failed to assign reasons while condoning the delay of 680 days. Of course, this Court is not swayed away by the observations of the trial court vis-à-vis the conduct of the wife in the court. The legal position referred to supra supports the case of the petitioner. The trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. If the order of the trial Court is allowed to continue, it would cause a travesty of justice. Therefore, the orders under revision warrant interference.”

The case arose from divorce proceedings initiated by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the wife.

During the proceedings, the wife received summons and engaged an advocate, but no counter was filed despite several adjournments. After the advocate reported “no instructions”, the trial court proceeded ex parte. The husband examined himself as a witness and marked two documents, following which the court passed an ex parte decree dissolving the marriage.

The wife did not appeal within the statutory period. The husband subsequently remarried, and a female child was born from the second marriage.

Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 680-day delay in applying to set aside the decree. She alleged that her advocate had colluded with the husband and misled her about the progress of the proceedings.

She also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

The trial court allowed both applications, subject to payment of costs. Challenging these orders, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that the delay had been condoned without reasons and that the applications were filed after his second marriage.

The wife maintained that her advocate's conduct had prevented her from properly pursuing the case.

On examining the matter, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to consider the relevant circumstances and justify condoning the delay. It accordingly allowed the husband's pleas and set aside the trial court order.

The Court, however, clarified that its decision would not prevent the wife from claiming any statutory entitlements available to her under law.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Kamireddy Divya

Counsel for the Respondent: V.N.V. Surya Dattu