PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) AN absorbing question arises in the present Second Appeal. If a husband has obtained an ex-parte decree for divorce wife and the first appeal by the wife is dismissed and thereafter the husband remarries after the period of limitation for filing Second Appeal and the additional period for obtaining certified copy, etc, is over, should the second appeal by the wife filed before this Court after allowing her benefit of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act be dismissed as infructuous on account of the said remarriage of the husband or not ? ( 2 ) THE facts are that suit No. 19 of 1981 was filed by Satish Kumar Arora (hereinafter referred to as the husband) against Smt. Barsha Arora (hereinafter referred to as the wife) for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is alleged that there was another suit filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights filed earlier than the suit of the husband and both the suits were consolidated. For the purposes of the present appeal the details of the suit by the wife are not necessary. Suffice it to say that on 29. 9. 88 the trial Court directed that the husbands suit be proceeded with ex-parte. In the ex-parte proceedings following the said order, the husbands evidence was taken on 3. 11. 1988 and the evidence was closed. Some applications were moved by the wife for recalling of the ex-parte order. However, the trial Court by its order dated 25. 2. 89 dismissed the restoration application and passed the ex-parte decree in the divorce suit filed by the husband. Wifes first appeal before the 11 Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, was filed within time but dismissed on 25. 1. 1990. A second appeal was filed in this Court on 12. 4. 1990 along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on which application notices were issued by this Court. It may be remembered that the stamp Reporter of the Office of this Court reported that the second Appeal was within time only till 8. 4. 1990. The matter was listed on 4. 12. 4. 1990 along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on which application notices were issued by this Court. It may be remembered that the stamp Reporter of the Office of this Court reported that the second Appeal was within time only till 8. 4. 1990. The matter was listed on 4. 12. 1990 when this Court condoned the delay in filing the second appeal with leave to respondent to agitate the question of condonation of delay on merits again after service. It was directed in the order dated 4. 12. 1990 that the appeal will be listed for admission and final disposal on the date fixed. In the meantime the husband put in appearance and apart from challenging the order of condonation of delay, he raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that he had remarried on 10. 4. 1990 and the appeal be dismissed as infructuous. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments on the preliminary objection and it is agreed that if the objection is upheld the appeal shall stand dismissed under Order-XLI Rule XI C. P. C. on the ground that it has become infructuous. Sri Sidheshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has strenuously argued that the words the time for appealing occurring in Section 15 of the Act would include the extended time which the appellant got by getting her application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act allowed. In order to lend support to this argument he has placed reliance on the case of Smt. Lata Kamat v. Vilas (A. I. R. 1989 SC. 1477) Sri B. D. Mandhyan, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband has however, placed reliance on the supreme Court decision reported in Smt. Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Sri Avinash Prasad srivastava and Anr. (A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 581 ). However, for the reasons in the following paragraphs it is difficult to apply either of the rulings on the facts of the present case. ( 3 ) IT is notable that Section 15 of the Act was transformed into a new look by marriages Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 68 of 1976) where by its proviso was dropped. However, for the reasons in the following paragraphs it is difficult to apply either of the rulings on the facts of the present case. ( 3 ) IT is notable that Section 15 of the Act was transformed into a new look by marriages Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 68 of 1976) where by its proviso was dropped. There used to be a bar of one year from the date of decree on remarriage under the old proviso but in view of the aforesaid amendment, either party to the marriage can remarry anytime after the decree of divorce is passed if there is no right of appeal. It there is a right of appeal against the decree passed, either party can remarry only after the time for appealing by the aggrieved party has expired without filing of an appeal or the appeal has been filed but has been dismissed. It may also be remembered that under Section 28 of the Act, the execution of the decree or the operation of the order appealed against may be stayed by the appellate or second appellate Court. ( 4 ) IN the instant case it has not been disputed that the husband-respondent has remarried in Delhi on 10. 4. 1990 and as noted above, the time for filing second appeal in this Court as per the report of the stamp reporter expired on 8. 4. 1990 including the time taken for obtaining the certified copies of the decree passed by the two Courts below i. e. Munsifs dated 25. 2. 1989 and II Addl. District Judges, dated 25. 1. 1990. ( 5 ) BEFORE going in to the two authorities cited an important factor to be noticed is that if and when either party comes with the allegations of a second marriage and the said fact is admitted by the adversary a new interest in the litigation is created in the unrepresented-new entrant, be it a second wife or a second husband. If the language of the law, without any unnecessary twist or stress, can protect the interest of the new entrant, it must be so interpreted in this connection it has to be borne in mind that the Indian Limitation Act in so far as those extend the time as a matter of right to a party to the suit for filing appeal, that extended period must be included within the meaning of the time for appealing For example, if there be any provision that time spent for obtaining certified copy of the judgment/decree is to be excluded incomputing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the said period of time should be taken to be added to the stipulated period of limitation for filing an appeal/second appeal. Section 12 of the Indian limitation Act says exactly so. Therefore, in the present case also the appellant wife was entitled to add that much of the additional time over and above the actual period of limitation which she has spent in obtaining the required certified copies. ( 6 ) IT is common knowledge that ignorance of law is no excuse. Looking at the provisions of the act, the legislative intent is obvious that the parties to matrimonial litigation have to be vigilant about their rights of appeal and the manner and limitation for its exercise, as slackness and laches and delay may render such right ineffective due to remarriage by the decree-holder. Therefore, any litigant can, of course, have a watch through the copying department of the Court concerned by making necessary enquiries under the relevant Rules, in order to know when a certified copy has been applied for by his/her adversary and when was it ready for delivery and when its delivery was ultimately taken. This period of time for obtaining certified copies is therefore, within the realm of ascertainable provess of a litigant and does not compel him/her to wait indefinitely. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid chain of reasoning leaves one to the irresistible conclusion that filing of belated appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should never be interpreted as a bar on the second marriage by the adverse party. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid chain of reasoning leaves one to the irresistible conclusion that filing of belated appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should never be interpreted as a bar on the second marriage by the adverse party. Success or failure of an application under Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, depends upon the concerned Courts order favourably deciding the existence of sufficient cause explaining the delay in filing the appeal or the second appeal. In some case the delay may be one month, in the other it may be one year and in some other, it may be even more. One may assume that the party may meet with an unfortunate accident and get hospitalised for about two or three years and then obviously it will be sufficient cause for filing the appeal after he is discharged from hospital. But then, should the other party continue to live a barren life without earning a second spouse even though Section-15 of the Act empowers him/her to? And then, how does the would-be-respondent come to know and anticipate a contemplated action of a would-be-appellant ? However, the case may be different where a spouse may come to know of filing of an appeal by the other spouse along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the period of limitation and inspite of such knowledge contracts a second marriage inspite of the pendency the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in such belated appeal. The spirit behind Section 15 of the Act would not permit such spouse to contract a second marriage and, therefore, in such a case the appeal may not be rendered infructuous. ( 8 ) COMING to the case law cited by Sri Sidheshwari Prasad, it may be noted that the Supreme court was not called upon to decide in the said case the applicability of Section 5 of the Indian limitation Act to the filing of an appeal. The facts in the said case were that a suit by the husband for declaring the marriage anullity under Section 12 (l) (d) of the Act was decreed on 3. 5. 1985. The wife filed the appeal on 19. 7. The facts in the said case were that a suit by the husband for declaring the marriage anullity under Section 12 (l) (d) of the Act was decreed on 3. 5. 1985. The wife filed the appeal on 19. 7. 1985 because she had spent enough time for obtaining the certified copies and adding the said period by virtue of Section 12 (2) of the Indian limitation Act she presented the appeal on the said date. The husband had however, contracted a second marriage in the meantime on 27. 6. 1985. With reference to the aforesaid dates the supreme Court held that the second marriage by the husband would not render her appeal in-fructuous because in dealing with an appeal the statutory provisions contained in Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act shall have to be taken note of. ( 9 ) IT is true that a paragraph from the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Chander Dev chadha v. Smt. Rani Bala (A. I. R. 1979 Delhi 22) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court but in that case also the question of applicability of time spent in obtaining certified copies was basically involved. Keeping in view the reasons stated above it is impossible to accept the contention that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act stands at par with Section 12 of the limitation Act in so a far as giving benefit to either party in filing an appeal under the Act against a decree passed under Section 13 of the Act is concerned. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the preliminary objection is upheld and the second appeal has to fail as infructuous. The appeal is thus dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs throughout. .