Wife’s Prima Facie Evidence Of Husband’s Second Marriage Prompts Karnataka HC To Set Aside Divorce Decree, Order Fresh Hearing

The husband petitioned for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion.

The wife appeared before the Family Court but filed no objections and did not cross-examine the husband.

The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on 11 September 2023.

On appeal, the wife sought to introduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including documents relating to her allegation that the husband had contracted a second marriage in 2015, before filing his divorce petition in 2022.

1. Whether the wife should be permitted an opportunity to produce and rely on additional evidence concerning her allegation that the husband had contracted a second marriage before filing the divorce petition.

2. Whether, in the circumstances—including the wife’s failure to file objections or cross-examine the husband, and the prima facie indication that material facts had been suppressed—the divorce decree should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

The husband’s divorce petition was brought under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provide grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The wife sought to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied the procedural principle that undue importance should not be attached to technicalities where doing so would deny a party a fair opportunity to present their case; it considered that the interests of justice warranted a fresh hearing.

The documents produced by the wife—including a certificate indicating that the husband had participated in a mass marriage ceremony with another woman in 2015 and records of a related criminal complaint—prima facie supported her allegation of a second marriage before the divorce petition was filed.

The Court considered that the husband had not disclosed this matter to the Family Court and that the documents raised a concern that material facts might have been suppressed.

Although the wife had not filed objections or cross-examined the husband, the Court declined to treat that procedural default as decisive, reasoning that she should have an effective opportunity to contest the petition in light of the material she sought to produce.

The matter was remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration, with directions to allow the wife to file objections, cross-examine the husband, and adduce evidence.

The Family Court must hear both parties and decide the matter without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits; all contentions were left open.