A second appeal filed by the appellant/wife against the decision of the learned District Judge-10, Aurangabad, who refused to condone a 166-day delay in challenging a divorce decree. The appellant argued that the delay was due to her advocate not informing her about the decree in time. The respondent/husband remarried after the decree, and the court ultimately held that the remarriage rendered the appeal infructuous, affirming the lower court's decision.

1. Introduction

• Consent of Counsel: Case heard finally at admission stage by consent of counsel for both parties.
• Nature of Appeal: Second appeal by appellant/wife against District Judge-10, Aurangabad's order denying delay condonation.

2. Background Facts

• Marriage and Dispute: Appellant and respondent married on 02/04/2013, one daughter from wedlock, dispute led to Hindu Marriage Petition No. 3 of 2016 by respondent for divorce.
• Trial Court Decree: Divorce decree passed ex-parte on 29/08/2019 by the 12th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad.
• First Appeal and Delay: Appellant's application for condonation of 166-day delay rejected on 15/09/2021 by the first appellate court.

3. Appellant's Arguments

• Error in Judgment: First appellate court erred by not condoning the delay.
• Advocate's Negligence: Delay due to advocate not informing appellant about the decree.
• Principle of Natural Justice: Denial of condonation violated natural justice as the decree was ex-parte.

4. Respondent's Arguments

• Support for Lower Court's Decision: Supported impugned judgment and decree of divorce.
• Remarriage: Respondent remarried on 01/10/2019, now has a son.
• Infructuous Appeal: Citing remarriage, argued appeal was infructuous.

5. Court's Observations

• Appellant's Awareness: Appellant was aware of respondent's remarriage during delay condonation proceedings.
• First Appellate Court's Reasoning: Refusal based on appellant's status as a responsible government officer and negligence in prosecuting the divorce petition.

6. Legal Precedents and Analysis

• Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act: Allows remarriage after a divorce decree unless an appeal is filed within the limitation period.
• Delhi High Court's Judgment in Seema Devi vs. Shree Ranjit Kumar Bhagat: Ex-parte decree of divorce holds the same effect as a contested one; remarriage lawful if no appeal within limitation.
• Supreme Court's Observations: Marriages contracted during prescribed periods are not void unless expressly stated by law.

7. Conclusion

• Substantial Question of Law: Whether the appeal became infructuous due to the remarriage of the husband.
• Answer: Affirmative. The appeal is dismissed as it became infructuous due to the respondent's lawful remarriage.