Remarriage During Delayed Appeal Not Void: Kerala HC Sets Aside Rs 20 Lakh Alimony, Remits for Fresh Adjudication

The Kerala High Court held that Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act bars remarriage only when an appeal is filed within the period of limitation, not after a delay that was subsequently condoned — and set aside a Rs 20 lakh permanent alimony award for fresh adjudication in light of the wife's remarriage.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., on 12 June 2026 partly allowed a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court decree that dissolved his marriage and directed him to pay Rs 20,00,000 as permanent alimony. The Bench held that the wife's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal — filed 12 days beyond the period of limitation — was not rendered void by Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal against the divorce decree was dismissed as infructuous. The alimony award was set aside and remitted to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, for fresh adjudication after affording both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Marriage, the Allegations, and the Family Court Decree

The marriage between Vijay R. Nair, a Technical Chargeman at Ordnance Factory, Chandrapur under the Ministry of Defence, and Lijitha was solemnised on 06.09.2019 at the wife's house as per Hindu religious ceremonies. According to the wife's case before the Family Court, the appellant and his mother treated her with hostility from the outset, insulting her and her family over their inability to pay dowry even before the marriage.

Barely three months after the marriage, the wife became pregnant and was taken to her parental home for delivery. She gave birth to a female child on 17.06.2010. After the confinement period, she returned to Chandrapur, but the ill-treatment and dowry demands continued. Her father paid Rs 5,00,000 to the appellant and a further Rs 3,00,000 on a later occasion. Despite receiving these amounts, the appellant continued to ill-treat her. On 29.06.2011, her parents came to Chandrapur and took her and the child back to their house at Eramalloor, Kothamangalam, where they have resided ever since.

The wife had earlier filed a complaint against the appellant and his mother under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam as C.C.No.520 of 2012. She also filed M.C.No.234 of 2011 for maintenance and O.P.No.1498 of 2011 for divorce before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Those proceedings were settled through mediation and a compromise agreement was drawn up. The wife's case was that the appellant did not honour the compromise and refused to pay maintenance. She therefore filed O.P.No.381 of 2021 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.

Before the Family Court, the appellant entered appearance through counsel but filed no written objection and led no oral or documentary evidence. The court recorded the wife's testimony as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A7 on her side. By its judgment dated 02.02.2024, the Family Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion and directed the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 within one month, with 6% interest recoverable from him and his assets if the amount was not paid in time.

The Appeal, the Delay, and the Wife's Remarriage

The appellant filed Mat. Appeal No.501 of 2024 before the Kerala High Court with a delay of 12 days. The delay was condoned on 12.02.2025. Critically, this Court did not pass any interim order staying the operation of the Family Court's judgment and decree during the pendency of the appeal. Mediated settlement attempts between the parties also failed.

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/wife remarried on 14.09.2025. This fact came on record through a marriage certificate dated 13.12.2025, produced by the appellant along with an interlocutory application to receive additional documents.

The appellant's counsel, Dr. Sebastian Champappilly, advanced two arguments. First, that the wife's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal was void, because Section 5(i) read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act would render a marriage contracted while an earlier marriage subsisted as void, and that Section 15 of the Act prohibited remarriage during the pendency of an appeal. Second, that the alimony of Rs 20,00,000 was awarded without the appellant having had an effective opportunity to lead evidence, and that in view of the wife's remarriage, the appellant was entitled to seek cancellation or reduction of the alimony under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The respondent's counsel, Smt. Parvathy Menon, countered that the bar under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only when an appeal is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Since the present appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days — outside the period of limitation — the bar did not arise, and the wife's remarriage could not be characterised as void or unlawful. On alimony, she submitted that the absence of evidence on the appellant's side was entirely due to his own lapses, and that the Family Court had relied on the wife's oral and documentary evidence to make the award.

The Bench's Reasoning on Section 15 and the Validity of Remarriage

The Division Bench, in a judgment authored by Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, examined the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Bench observed that Section 15 only clarifies that when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and an appeal has been preferred within the period permitted by the statute, it would be unlawful for either party to marry again during that period.

The Bench drew on the Supreme Court's position in Leela Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and Ors. [(1978) 3 SCC 258] as followed in Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj and Anr. [AIR 2020 SC 1156]. Those decisions had settled that merely because either party is prohibited from contracting a second marriage for a certain period, it cannot be said that the first marriage subsists or is presumed to subsist. An incapacity for second marriage for a defined period does not have the effect of treating the former marriage as continuing. The Bench applied this position to reject the appellant's argument that the wife's second marriage was bigamous and therefore void.

The Bench went further on the specific facts. The appeal before this Court was not filed within the period of limitation under the Act but with a delay of 12 days, which was subsequently condoned. The bar under Section 15 applies only to appeals filed within the period of limitation, not to appeals admitted after condonation of delay. The Bench held that the bar under Section 15 would not come to the appellant's aid in these circumstances. It also noted that no interim order restraining the respondent from remarrying had been passed during the pendency of the appeal.

On the strength of this reasoning, the Bench dismissed the appeal to the extent it challenged the divorce decree, holding that the appeal had become infructuous in view of the wife's remarriage.

Alimony Award Set Aside, Matter Remitted to Family Court

On the question of permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000, the Bench accepted the appellant's submission that the Family Court's finding was rendered in the complete absence of any evidence on his behalf. Under ordinary circumstances, the Bench observed, it would have been reluctant to remand the issue for fresh adjudication. However, the changed circumstances — specifically, the wife's remarriage during the pendency of the appeal — made it necessary for the Family Court to re-examine both the entitlement to permanent alimony and its quantum. The Bench noted that this exercise would in any event have to be undertaken when the appellant preferred an application under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the court below.

The Bench accordingly set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court to the extent it awarded permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 to the respondent. The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, for fresh adjudication on the alimony issue after affording both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The Family Court was requested to complete the fresh adjudication within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Outcome

Mat. Appeal No.501 of 2024 was partly allowed. The appeal against the divorce decree was dismissed as infructuous. The award of permanent alimony of Rs 20,00,000 was set aside. The alimony issue was remitted to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, for fresh adjudication within two months, with both parties to be given an opportunity to lead evidence.