A significant ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced that a divorce decree obtained through evasion of service cannot be enforced, especially when the aggrieved spouse seeks to challenge it promptly. The Court’s intervention to restrain remarriage pending appeal underscores the primacy of procedural fairness in matrimonial disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sonam Raghuvanshi, was not served with notice in a divorce petition filed by her husband, Vikram Raghuvanshi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court at Vidisha passed an ex parte decree of divorce on 15 April 2025. The appellant only became aware of the decree after it was pronounced and immediately filed an appeal before the High Court.
Procedural History
- April 2025: Ex parte divorce decree passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha, without service on the wife.
- Late 2025: Appellant files appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking to set aside the decree.
- November 2025: High Court issues notice to respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 73-day delay in filing appeal.
- December 2025: Respondent remained unserved despite notice issued via RAD mode, which under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Rule 11(2) of MP High Court Rules, 2008, is deemed effective service.
- February 2026: Appellant moves for stay of the divorce decree, alleging respondent intends to remarry on 5 February 2026.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) condonation of delay in filing the appeal; and (2) an interim stay on the operation of the divorce decree to prevent the respondent from entering into a second marriage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a divorce decree obtained ex parte, where service was deliberately evaded by the petitioner, can be enforced to permit remarriage while the aggrieved spouse’s appeal is pending, and whether the Court may grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the appellant was never served with notice, rendering the ex parte decree voidable under principles of natural justice. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the respondent’s concealment of proceedings, which constituted sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The imminent remarriage would cause irreparable injury by extinguishing the appellant’s marital rights and rendering the appeal infructuous.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any counter-submission. The Court noted that despite deemed service under RAD mode, the respondent had actively circumvented actual notice, suggesting mala fide intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the twin issues of condonation of delay and the need for interim restraint. It held that the appellant’s lack of notice was not due to negligence but due to the respondent’s deliberate evasion. The Court emphasized that natural justice demands that no party be deprived of an opportunity to be heard, especially in matters affecting personal status.
"When a party obtains an ex parte decree by ensuring the other party remains uninformed, and then seeks to consummate a second marriage, the Court cannot remain a silent spectator. The remedy of appeal would be rendered illusory if the status quo is not preserved."
The Court distinguished this from ordinary delays, noting that the prejudice here was not merely procedural but existential - remarriage would permanently alter the legal and social fabric of the marriage. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent abuse of process and protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and granted an interim stay on the divorce decree. It restrained the respondent from entering into any marriage until further orders, recognizing that enforcement of an ex parte decree obtained through evasion of service violates the foundational principles of fair trial and equity.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Ex Parte Decrees Are Voidable If Service Was Evaded
- Practitioners must now argue that any ex parte divorce decree obtained without actual service is prima facie voidable, regardless of deemed service under technical rules.
- Courts must scrutinize whether the petitioner took active steps to avoid service, especially in matrimonial cases.
- Evidence of concealment - such as changing addresses, refusing to accept notices, or misleading the court - should be documented and presented as grounds for setting aside the decree.
Stay on Remarriage Is a Valid Equitable Remedy
- Courts may grant interim stays on remarriage pending appeal in cases where the ex parte decree was obtained through fraud or evasion.
- The threat of irreparable harm - loss of marital status, social stigma, or inheritance rights - justifies extraordinary relief under Section 151 CPC.
- Petitioners should file applications for stay immediately upon learning of the decree, attaching affidavits on the respondent’s intent to remarry.
Police Have a Duty to Enforce Family Court Orders
- The Court’s directive to police stations to prevent weddings based on court orders sets a new precedent for enforcement.
- Practitioners should now serve copies of stay orders on local police stations and Superintendent of Police to ensure compliance.
- Failure by police to act on such orders may constitute contempt of court or dereliction of duty under Section 175 IPC.
