Can a wife’s remarriage during a delayed divorce appeal make the second marriage void? Kerala High Court answered this issue and also reopened the ₹20 lakh permanent alimony question.
KOCHI: Can a remarriage during the pendency of a delay-condoned divorce appeal be treated as void? The Kerala High Court has answered this important question under the Hindu Marriage Act while partly allowing a husband’s matrimonial appeal.
The case was heard by the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. in Mat. Appeal No.501 of 2024. The appeal was filed by husband Vijay R. Nair against the Family Court, Muvattupuzha judgment dated 02.02.2024 in O.P.No.381 of 2021. The respondent-wife was Lijitha. The neutral citation is 2026:KER:42087, and the case is also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 343.
The Family Court had granted divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It had also directed the husband to pay ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.
The husband filed an appeal, but there was a delay of 12 days. The High Court later condoned the delay. However, there was no interim stay on the Family Court’s divorce decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife remarried on 14.09.2025.
The husband argued that the wife’s second marriage was void because the appeal against the divorce decree was still pending. He also argued that the appeal had not become infructuous and that he was entitled to seek cancellation or reduction of the permanent alimony because of the wife’s remarriage.
The wife opposed this argument. She submitted that Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act bars remarriage only when an appeal is filed within the limitation period. In this case, the appeal was not filed on time and was filed with a delay of 12 days. Therefore, according to her, her remarriage could not be called void or unlawful.
The High Court accepted this position and held that the husband could not use Section 15 to attack the wife’s remarriage. The Court noted that there was also no stay order stopping her from remarrying during the appeal.
“…since the bar under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only if there is an appeal filed within the period of limitation and not afterwards upon condonation of delay in filing the appeal, we are of the view that the bar will not come to the aid of the appellant to contend that the second marriage of the respondent was, in any way, unlawful. In that context, it is also significant that in the instant appeal, there was no interim order of stay granted by this Court restraining the respondent from remarrying during the pendency of the appeal.”
The Court also clarified that even where Section 15 bars remarriage for a certain period, violation of that bar does not automatically mean that the first marriage continues to exist. A divorce decree dissolves the marriage, and the bar only creates a temporary legal restriction on remarriage.
“We might…observe that we cannot accept the interpretation sought to be placed…on the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act that, if one of the parties to a marriage that has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, marries again during the pendency of an appeal that is filed within time, it would render the subsequent marriage void ab initio in view of the provisions of Section 5(i) read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act only clarifies that when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and if an appeal has been preferred within the period permitted by the Statute, it would be unlawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.”
The High Court relied on Supreme Court decisions including Leela Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj. It said that a temporary incapacity to remarry does not mean that the earlier marriage is still legally alive.
“An incapacity for second marriage for a certain period does not have the effect of treating the former marriage as subsisting. This settled position in law would suffice to reject the argument…that the second marriage was void since it was bigamous in nature,”
Because of the wife’s remarriage, the High Court held that the husband’s challenge to the divorce decree had become infructuous. The Court therefore dismissed that part of the appeal.
However, the husband got relief on the issue of permanent alimony. The High Court noticed that the Family Court had awarded ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony without any evidence being led by the husband. More importantly, the wife had remarried during the pendency of the appeal. This was a changed circumstance under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court therefore set aside the Family Court judgment only to the extent it awarded ₹20 lakh permanent alimony to the wife. It remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication on the alimony issue after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
The High Court also requested the Family Court to complete the fresh decision on permanent alimony within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
For husbands facing matrimonial litigation, this case shows that even if the divorce issue becomes infructuous, the financial liability part can still survive. A man cannot assume that an alimony order is final forever when the wife has remarried. Section 25(3) gives a legal route to seek cancellation, reduction or modification of permanent alimony when circumstances change.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS & SECTION
| LAW / SECTION / CASE | WHAT IT DEALS WITH | WHY IT WAS MENTIONED IN THIS CASE | WHAT THE KERALA HIGH COURT SAID / HOW IT MATTERED |
| Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on the ground of cruelty. | The wife filed the divorce petition alleging cruelty by the husband. | The Family Court granted divorce on this ground, and the High Court noted that the divorce decree had already been passed. |
| Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on the ground of desertion. | The wife also sought divorce on the ground that the husband had deserted her. | The Family Court accepted this ground as well while dissolving the marriage. |
| Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Tells when a divorced person can marry again after a divorce decree. Normally, remarriage should wait until the appeal period expires, or if an appeal is filed in time, until it is decided. | This was the main legal issue in the case. The husband argued that because his appeal was pending, the wife’s remarriage was void. | The High Court rejected that argument. It held that Section 15 bar applies only when the appeal is filed within limitation. Here, the appeal was filed 12 days late and delay was condoned later. So Section 15 did not help the husband challenge the wife’s second marriage. |
| Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Permanent alimony and maintenance after divorce or other matrimonial relief. | The wife had asked for permanent alimony, and the Family Court awarded her ₹20 lakh. | The High Court examined whether that ₹20 lakh award should continue after the wife’s remarriage and whether the issue needed fresh consideration. |
| Section 25(3), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows the court to modify, cancel or vary permanent alimony if there is a change in circumstances, including remarriage of the party receiving alimony. | The husband specifically relied on this provision to say that after the wife remarried, the permanent alimony order should be cancelled or at least reduced. | The High Court accepted that the wife’s remarriage was a changed circumstance relevant to alimony. On that basis, it set aside the ₹20 lakh alimony part and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. |
| Section 5(i), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | One of the essential conditions of a Hindu marriage: neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. | The husband tried to link this provision with Section 17 to argue that the wife’s second marriage was void / bigamous. | The High Court refused to accept that interpretation. It held that merely because Section 15 creates a temporary bar in some situations, it does not mean the first marriage continues to subsist so as to automatically make the second marriage void under Section 5(i). |
| Section 17, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Deals with bigamy in Hindu marriages and attracts penal consequences if a second marriage is contracted while the first marriage is still subsisting. | The husband invoked the idea of bigamy to argue that the wife’s second marriage during the appeal was void. | The High Court rejected the bigamy argument. It held that the divorce decree had already dissolved the first marriage, and a temporary bar on remarriage under Section 15 does not revive or continue the first marriage for bigamy purposes. |
| Section 498A, Indian Penal Code | Cruelty by husband or husband’s relatives. | The wife stated that she had earlier filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A against the husband and his mother, and that case was pending before the Magistrate Court. | The High Court mentioned this as part of the matrimonial background and litigation history between the parties. It was not the central issue in deciding the remarriage question, but it formed part of the case history. |
| Leela Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 258 | Supreme Court judgment explaining the effect of remarriage restrictions and whether violation of such restriction automatically makes a second marriage void. | The Kerala High Court referred to this precedent while analysing Section 15 HMA and the husband’s void-marriage argument. | The Court used this judgment to support the principle that a temporary incapacity to remarry does not mean the first marriage still subsists for all purposes. |
| Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj and Another, AIR 2020 SC 1156 | Supreme Court judgment which followed Leela Gupta and clarified the legal effect of the bar under Section 15 HMA. | The Kerala High Court expressly relied on this judgment while rejecting the husband’s plea that the second marriage was void. | The Court drew from this ruling to say that even if there is a temporary statutory bar on remarriage, it does not automatically make the former marriage continue in law or make the later marriage bigamous in the way argued by the husband. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Vijay R. Nair v. Lijitha
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Case Number: Mat. Appeal No.501 of 2024
- Connected Lower Court Case: O.P. No.381 of 2021, Family Court, Muvattupuzha
- Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:42087
- Date of Judgment: 12 June 2026
- Bench: Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Justice Preeta A.K.
- Appellant / Husband: Vijay R. Nair, aged 48 years
- Respondent / Wife: Lijitha, aged 37 years
- Counsels for Appellant / Husband: Dr. Sebastian Champappilly Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara Sri. George Cleetus Smt. Annie George Smt. Margaret Maureen Drose Smt. Swathi Krishna P.H. Smt. Rincy R.
- Counsels for Respondent / Wife: Smt. A. Parvathi Menon Sri. P. Sanjay Sri. Biju Meenattoor Smt. Indira K.P. Sri. Paul Varghese (Pallath) Sri. Kiran Narayanan Sri. Rahul Raj P. Sri. Muhammed Bilal V.A. Smt. Meera R. Menon Smt. Basila Beegam Smt. Devika S. Prasad
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A delayed appeal without stay cannot stop remarriage after divorce decree.
- Husband lost the divorce challenge, but he still got relief on ₹20 lakh alimony.
- Wife’s remarriage became a changed circumstance under Section 25(3) HMA.
- Permanent alimony is not a lifetime punishment when circumstances change.
- Men must contest matrimonial cases from day one, otherwise silence becomes financial burden.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
