680-Day Delay in Challenging Ex-Parte Divorce Decree: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Orders

Computer-generated English audio

Jalna: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside trial court orders that condoned a 680-day delay and allowed a wife to seek the setting aside of an ex-parte divorce decree after her former husband had remarried and had a daughter from the second marriage.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the trial court had failed to record adequate reasons for condoning the substantial delay and had not properly considered the consequences of the husband’s subsequent remarriage. The High Court allowed the husband’s civil revision petitions. It clarified, however, that the decision would not prevent the wife from claiming statutory entitlements available to her under law.

Background of the dispute

According to the report, the husband instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife received summons and engaged an advocate, but no counter was filed despite several adjournments. After the advocate reported that he had no instructions, the trial court proceeded ex parte.

The husband examined himself as a witness and produced two documents. The trial court subsequently passed an ex-parte decree dissolving the marriage. The wife did not appeal within the prescribed statutory period. The husband later remarried, and a female child was born from the second marriage.

Wife alleged that her advocate misled her

The wife later filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 680-day delay. She also moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex-parte divorce decree. She alleged that her advocate had colluded with the husband and misled her about the proceedings.

The trial court allowed both applications subject to costs. The husband challenged the orders, arguing that the delay had been condoned without adequate reasons and that the trial court had failed to consider his subsequent marriage. The wife maintained that her advocate’s conduct had prevented her from properly pursuing the case.

High Court’s findings

The High Court observed that the trial court had failed to explain why the 680-day delay deserved to be condoned. It also noted that the husband had remarried and had a daughter from the subsequent marriage—circumstances that had not been adequately considered. The High Court concluded that the trial court had not exercised its jurisdiction properly and set aside the challenged orders.

The ruling does not mean that every delayed application to reopen an ex-parte divorce decree must be rejected. Each matter depends on its facts, the explanation for delay and applicable law. The Court expressly preserved the wife’s right to claim statutory entitlements available to her.

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with the circumstances in which divorced persons may remarry. The finality of the divorce decree and the expiry or disposal of appeal proceedings remain important and must be assessed in the circumstances of each case.

Proposed comment by Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat

“Courts must exercise the power to condone delay judiciously and record reasons supported by the facts of the case. Where a divorce decree has been followed by a second marriage and the birth of a child, the legal consequences for all concerned require careful consideration. At the same time, each case must be decided on its own facts, and procedural delay should not be treated as an automatic rule extinguishing a woman’s statutory rights.”

Case details: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3014 and 3025 of 2025; 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 257. Reported by LiveLaw on October 23, 2026.

Editorial note: The comment attributed to Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat is a proposed statement prepared for publication.

Read the original report on LiveLaw