Citizens' Issues
Bombay HC bench to rule on post-divorce limitation for appeal

After how much time can a divorced person marry again? Bombay High Court to rule on issue soon


A full bench of the Bombay High Court will answer the question on when can a divorce person marry again, while deciding over a reference. A division bench of Justice Oka and Justice Gadkari were referred the case. The 2007 view of a division bench stated that provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act allows 90 days to file an appeal against a divorce decree issued by a family court. The Family Courts Act allows a 30-day period instead.
The case is in the context of a Thane resident, who challenged his estranged wife’s marriage to another man. The divorce was issued on 22 April 2013. The husband filed the appeal in Bombay High Court on 3 July 2013. However, six days after the divorce the woman remarried, which was before the completion of 90 days. The man objected to the validity of the woman’s second marriage.
The issue which arises for consideration in this Appeal is about the period of limitation available for preferring an appeal against a decree passed by the Family Court. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the impugned decree of divorce has been passed on 22 April 2013 on the petition filed by the respondent, wife.
The Memorandum of Appeal was lodged in this Court on 3 July 2013. In the Memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the certified copy of the Judgment and decree was applied for by the appellant, husband on 23 April 2013 and that the certified copy was received on 17 May 2013. The appeal proceeds on the footing that the period of limitation available for preferring an appeal is of 90 days. The issue of limitation in this appeal is very relevant in the context of section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 as it is the case of the respondent that she has remarried on 9 July 2013.
If the prescribed period of limitation for preferring a Family Court Appeal is taken as 90 days, the marriage will be illegal being contrary to section 15 of the said Act of 1955. If the period of limitation is taken as 30 days, the embargo under section 15 of the said Act of 1955 will not apply. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the period of limitation of 90 days is available as provided under section 28 of the said Act of 1955. She has placed reliance on the order dated 25th April 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Court.



Shirish Mudras

2 years ago

finally what's the conclusion?

Maharashtra government extends deadline for polls in cooperative societies

A bill to give a green signal to the delayed polls was passed by the Maharashtra state assembly


The Maharashtra state government has decided to permit holding of elections for big cooperative societies up to 30 June 2015. A bill to give a green signal to the delay was passed by the Maharashtra state assembly.


The cooperative societies have been classified into four categories A, B, C and D on the basis of several parameters. Two of the criteria are the number of members and turnover. A and B are big societies while C and D are smaller societies.


After State Cooperative Societies Election Authority (SCESA) was constituted, it started holding the elections of C and D class societies. The deadline earlier was March 2013. As the number of small societies is large - 15,519 - the SCSA told the government that it was not possible to hold elections for so many societies within the deadline.


There are 138 A type societies and 3,884 B type. As per the act, the elections must be held within 70 days of announced. The deadline was December 2014. However, SCESA has told the available government machinery was busy in conducting elections of C and D type. Hence it was not possible to hold the polls as per the original schedule.


The SCESA urged the government to extend the deadline till June 2015. It has started preparing the electoral rules for A and B class societies.


As A and B type societies are relatively large, the number of polling personnel and infrastructure will be far higher than C and D.


The state government had amended the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and made elections compulsory because many societies had become fiefdoms on politicians or influential persons. These societies were being run like a family business and the societies served vested interest at the cost of members and state exchequer.


The SCESA headed by SC Election Commissioner was constituted. A general election of members and then election for office-bearers of the society are being held.


Travel Insurance: Is there travel insurance for those with PED?

A 21-year old with heart transplant not given cover. Is it fair?


The media has...

Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access


Already A Subscriber?
Yearly Digital+Print Access


Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)