Summary
The High Court’s order setting aside an ex parte divorce decree and directing the original spouses to live together could not stand when the husband’s subsequent wife had neither been impleaded nor heard. Despite knowing of the subsequent marriage, the High Court failed to consider its consequences. The miscellaneous appeal concerning refusal to condone delay in seeking to set aside the decree was remanded after directing impleadment of the subsequent wife and an attempt at settlement.
Issues
- Whether matrimonial directions affecting the subsequent wife could be issued without impleading or hearing her.
- How the appeal against refusal to condone delay should proceed on remand.
Held
- The High Court knew of the subsequent marriage yet failed to consider its consequences and issued directions potentially incapable of performance. Passing such directions without notice or hearing to the affected subsequent wife rendered the order legally unsustainable. (¶ 10–12)
- The underlying appeal concerned the refusal to condone delay in an Order IX Rule 13 application; the Court questioned the necessity and propriety of the additional cohabitation directions without finally deciding the underlying merits. (¶ 13)
- The subsequent wife had to be impleaded. The High Court should attempt a mutually acceptable settlement, and, if that failed, decide the miscellaneous appeal afresh uninfluenced by the earlier orders or the Supreme Court’s observations. (¶ 14–17)
Result
Appeals allowed. High Court’s original and review orders set aside; miscellaneous appeal remanded for fresh decision after impleading the appellant. Settlement to be attempted first; failing settlement, merits to be decided in accordance with law. No final adjudication of marital status or delay condonation.