Judgment:
J.V. Gupta, C.J.
1. A sum of Rs. 4,250/- by way of withdrawal form has been today given to the learned counsel for the appellant as arrears of maintenance by the learned counsel for the respondent, which has been duly accepted by him.
2. The marriage was solemnised on July 8, 1982. The petition under Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), for getting the marriage annulled by a decree of nullity was filed on August 26, 1982, which was allowed on May 27, 1983. Appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was filed on April 8, 1985, but before any stay was obtained by the appellant, the respondent -had already re-married. When appeal came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge he relying upon the Devision Bench judgment of this Court in Promod Sharma v. Radha, A.I.R. 1976 Punjab and Haryana 355 came to the conclusion that the second marriage solemnised after the passing of the decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Act before the issuance of any stay order rendered the appeal of the wife against the decree of nullity infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such.
3. The learned- counsel for the appellant submitted that simply because the respondent had married for the second time during the pendency of the appeal, it did not render the appeal infructuous and that it should have been decided on merits. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 839.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties; we do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The above-said Supreme Court decision is distinguishable as therein the proceedings were for claiming divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act provides that when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal the time for appealing has expired without any appeal having been presented or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, i.e. shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again. However, there is no such provisions if the marriage has been declared to be a nullity as provided under Section 12 of the Act. This distinction was clearly made by this Court in Promod Sharma's case (supra) wherein it was held : -
'The present case is not a case of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act but it is a case under Section 12 of the Act where the marriage between the parties has been declared a nullity and remarriage by either of the spouse is not barred either under Section 15 of any other provision of the Act.'
In view of the above-said judgment, we do not find any justification for interference in the letters patent appeal.
6. Apart from the above, the respondent has married again in the year 1983, and, therefore, now after a period of seven years, it will be futile to go into the merits of the appeal as it may create complications.
7. Consequently, this appeal fails and dismissed with no order as tocosts.