NEELOPHER Vs. MOHD ZAMEER AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed OP No.432 of 2009 in the Family Court, Secunderabad with a prayer to declare the move of the respondent to contract second marriage as illegal and opposed to law. She also filed 1A No.702 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to restrain the respondent form contracting the second marriage. THE IA was dismissed on 30.7.2010. THE petitioner filed CRP No.3408 of 2010 before this Court, challenging the order in the IA. She also filed CRP MP No.4546 of 2010. This Court granted an order of interim injunction to be in force for a period of six weeks on 3.8.2010. THE respondent filed IA No.6471 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. Observing that the petitioner was absent on the date of hearing, this Court vacated the interim order on 10.12.2010. THE petitioner filed CMP No.8178 of 2010 for setting aside the order, dated 10.12.2010. THE said CMP was allowed on 31.12.2010 and the order, dated 10.12.2010 was recalled.

(2.) This contempt case is filed stating that the respondent contracted second marriage on 23.12.2010. According to the petitioner, the said act of the respondent amounts to contempt of Court, since the marriage was contracted before expiry of the time for filing an application to set aside the order, dated 10.12.2010 and even while the CRP was pending.

(3.) There are clear provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act (Section 15) and Indian Divorce Act (Section 57), which prohibit marriage by any of the spouses, up to certain period in the event of the proceedings of divorce being allowed. The prohibition operates till the expiry of the period of limitation for availing the further remedy or if such proceedings are filed, till the dismissal thereof. The purport of these provisions was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Kamat v. Vilas, 1989 2 SCC 613, Smt. Lila upta v. Laxmi Narain and others, 1978 3 SCC 258 and Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava, 1967 AIR(SC) 581 It is true that the parties herein are governed by a different personal law. However, the question as to whether the principle that a spouse, who is a party to the proceedings before a Family Court, cannot contract another marriage during the pendency of the proceedings in a Superior Forum, applies to the petitioners needs to be examined. Since the matter is of general importance and the judgments rendered by various Courts are required to be considered, it is felt that the matter deserves to be heard by a Division Bench.