Divorce appeal survives remarriage when appeal remains valid, and ex parte decree falls without fair notice or cross-examination.

A remarriage after a divorce decree does not by itself make an appeal infructuous where the appeal is still valid in law; once delay is condoned, the decree remains open to challenge under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court also held that an ex parte matrimonial decree cannot stand when the respondents had no effective notice of the advanced hearing date and were denied the chance to cross-examine the sole witness or lead evidence. The divorce decree was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against the decree of divorce had become infructuous because the decree-holder had remarried after the trial court's decree; (ii) Whether the ex parte decree dissolving the marriage could be sustained when the respondents had no effective notice and no opportunity to cross-examine the sole witness.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against the decree of divorce had become infructuous because the decree-holder had remarried after the trial court's decree;

Analysis: A remarriage contracted after a decree of divorce, but before the appeal is effectively concluded, does not by itself extinguish the appellate remedy. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits remarriage only when the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being presented or when any appeal has been dismissed. Once delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal is treated as filed within time, and the decree cannot be regarded as beyond challenge merely because of the subsequent marriage.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected, and the appeal was held not to have become infructuous.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte decree dissolving the marriage could be sustained when the respondents had no effective notice and no opportunity to cross-examine the sole witness.

Analysis: The decree rested entirely on the oral testimony of the petitioner's power of attorney holder. The record did not establish that the respondents had notice of the advanced hearing date, and they were therefore deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witness or adduce evidence in defence. A decree affecting matrimonial status cannot stand when passed in such circumstances without fair opportunity to the other side.

Conclusion: The ex parte decree was set aside and the matter was remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the objection based on remarriage failed, and the divorce decree was annulled for fresh adjudication before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree of divorce remains open to appellate challenge despite a subsequent remarriage if the appeal is maintained in law, and an ex parte matrimonial decree cannot be sustained where it is passed without effective notice and without affording the respondents a fair opportunity to contest the sole evidence.

---