The Delhi High Court has set aside a Family Court order that refused to waive the statutory one-year waiting period for filing a mutual consent divorce petition. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, ruled that insisting on the continuation of a marriage that has never been consummated and exists only in law causes “exceptional hardship” to the parties.
Case Background
The appeal (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025) challenged the Order dated December 9, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
The parties solemnized their marriage on March 30, 2025, at an Arya Samaj Mandir, followed by registration on April 2, 2025. However, it was an admitted position that the couple “never cohabited even for a single day” and the marriage was “never consummated.” Immediately after the ceremony, both parties continued to reside separately at their respective parental homes.
Due to irreconcilable differences discovered immediately, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) within seven months of the marriage. They also filed an application under Section 14 of the HMA seeking leave to present the petition before the expiry of the mandatory one-year period.
The Family Court dismissed the application, holding that the parties failed to establish a case of “exceptional hardship.” The lower court also observed that the parties had not made sufficient efforts to preserve the marriage and that the registration of the marriage shortly after solemnization “diluted their claim of exceptional hardship.”
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is currently residing in Canada, while the Appellant resides in India. It was argued that the Appellant is required to care for her aged parents and is unable to relocate, while the Respondent is similarly unable to move to India.
The parties contended that these circumstances were unavoidable and resulted in continued separation with “no realistic or practical possibility of resumption of matrimonial life,” thereby creating a case of exceptional hardship.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court examined Section 13-B(1) and Section 14 of the HMA. Section 14(1) provides a bar on entertaining a divorce petition within one year of marriage unless the case involves “exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.”
The Bench relied on the recent Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar (Decided on 17.12.2025), which clarified that the statutory one-year period can be waived if the court is satisfied that exceptional hardship exists.
Applying the law to the facts, the Court observed:
“In the present case, the admitted facts demonstrate that the parties never cohabited, the marriage was never consummated, and they have lived separately since the very inception of the marriage. There are no children from the wedlock, nor is there any reasonable probability of their living together in future. These facts are not in dispute and strike at the very foundation of a subsisting matrimonial relationship.”
The Court rejected the Family Court’s reasoning regarding the registration of the marriage. The Bench stated:
“Registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship.”
Furthermore, regarding the Family Court’s view on saving the marriage, the High Court noted:
“Where the marriage has never been acted upon by the parties through cohabitation, the question of saving such a marriage does not meaningfully arise.”
Decision
The Court concluded that denying the waiver would compel the parties to endure a relationship devoid of substance.
“Insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation, thereby causing avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court’s order dated December 9, 2025. The application under Section 14 of the HMA was allowed, granting leave to the parties to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent forthwith, without waiting for the expiry of one year.
The matter was remanded to the Family Court to proceed with the petition under Section 13-B HMA expeditiously.
Case Details:
- Case Title: NG vs DA
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025
- Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar
