Court Emphasizes Validity of Second Marriage Post Limitation Period and the Need for Reasoned Orders in Delay Condonation Applications
In a significant judgment dated July 27, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Justice Subba Reddy Satti, overturned the trial court's orders that condoned a delay of 680 days in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte divorce decree and allowed the setting aside of the said decree. The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between Veluri Ramesh Naidu (husband) and Nuthaki Geetha Bhagavathi (wife).
The husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which resulted in an ex parte decree of divorce in his favor on August 11, 2022, after the wife failed to contest the suit despite summons and engagement of counsel. The wife later moved applications to condone the delay of 680 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, alleging that her advocate had colluded with the husband and misled her about the proceedings. The trial court allowed these applications without assigning reasons.
However, the High Court noted that the husband had lawfully remarried on February 11, 2023, after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal against the divorce decree. The second marriage was blessed with a female child. The Court underscored the critical legal principle that once the limitation period for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, the subsequent remarriage is lawful and the decree of divorce becomes practically final. Setting aside an ex parte decree in such circumstances would have serious social and legal consequences, including impacting the status of the second wife and the legitimacy of the child.
The Court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, including the judgments in Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai and Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal, which clarified that the bar under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only where an appeal is filed within the limitation period, and the decree is stayed or there is an interim order restraining remarriage. The Court further held that a delay condonation order must disclose adequate reasons, which was lacking in this case.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court's orders dated February 13, 2025, and June 30, 2025, dismissing the wife's applications. However, the Court clarified that the wife remains entitled to claim any statutory entitlements as per law.
This judgment reaffirms the importance of finality in matrimonial disputes post the limitation period and the necessity for courts to exercise their discretion judicially with proper reasons, especially in matters affecting subsequent marriages and children.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Ex parte divorce decree - Delay of 680 days in filing petition to set aside decree - Husband remarried after expiry of limitation period and child born from second marriage - Trial Court erred in condoning delay and setting aside ex parte decree without assigning reasons and without considering effect of valid remarriage - Orders set aside.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia), Section 15; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order IX Rule 13; Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Veluri Ramesh Naidu v. Nuthaki Geetha Bhagavathi, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983164
