HC allows woman to challenge divorce on grounds of adultery

Last Updated: Thu, Apr 11, 2013 10:47 hrs

Mumbai: A woman has been allowed to challenge a family court order granting her husband divorce on the grounds that she lived an adulterous life by the Bombay High Court.The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal saying that such a premise could be a "stigma" for life.

The woman's appeal had been allowed by the District Court of Ahmednagar despite a delay of three-and-half years. Being aggrieved, her husband moved the High Court which upheld the district court's order of condoning the delay.

"If the respondent-wife is not allowed to prosecute the appeal, it will cause irreparable loss and her future life will be ruined. The observations that she lived an adulterous life will continue to remain without any opportunity to her for redressal of her grievance," observed Justice Shambaji Shinde recently.

"It is only by way of prosecuting the appeal filed before the District Court that she can get over such allegations. If the divorce decree is confirmed only because the husband has performed second marriage, it will affect not only status of the respondent-wife but it will also affect upon her future life since the competent court has observed that she lived in adultery," Justice Shinde remarked.

The husband filed a divorce plea in 2001. The family court in Ahmednagar granted divorce in 2005. The man married again and had children from the second marriage.

The wife filed an appeal against the decree of divorce after three-and-half years pleading that she was not aware about the divorce granted by the court. She said her advocate had not informed her about this development.

The husband said the respondent was throughout aware about the proceedings before the trial court as she had participated in the same and led evidence. She was aware about the grounds on which divorce decree was passed, he contended.

The wife, on the other hand, pleaded that she was not made aware about the divorce granted by the court and hence she did not file appeal within the period of limitation.

More from Sify: