The Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, ruled that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved within the first year of its solemnization unless exceptional grounds such as exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity are clearly demonstrated under the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court dismissed an appeal challenging the decision of the Family Court, Saharanpur, which had denied a petition for mutual consent divorce filed before the statutory one-year waiting period had elapsed.
Case Background
The case originated from a joint petition filed by a couple under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. The couple had approached the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, seeking an exemption under the proviso to Section 14, which allows the court to consider divorce petitions filed within the first year of marriage under specific exceptional circumstances.
On October 9, 2024, the Family Court rejected the petition on the grounds that the one-year statutory period mandated by Section 14 had not expired, and the reasons cited in the petition were insufficient to qualify for an exemption. Aggrieved by this decision, the couple filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. The appeal was registered as First Appeal Defective No. 12 of 2025.
Important Legal Issues
The legal issues before the High Court centered on the interpretation and application of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits the filing of a divorce petition within one year of marriage except under exceptional circumstances. The relevant provision states that:
1. No petition for divorce shall be entertained within one year of marriage.
2. The proviso allows an exception where the petitioner demonstrates exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity that justifies granting a waiver of the one-year waiting period.
The court had to determine whether the grounds cited by the couple—primarily mutual incompatibility and inability to live together—constituted exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity as required under the proviso to Section 14.
Key Observations of the Court
After examining the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, Praveen Kumar, and the counsel for the respondent, Sunil Kumar Mishra, the court concluded that the reasons cited in the petition were inadequate to meet the stringent requirements of the law. The bench observed that:
1. Sanctity of Marriage: The court reiterated the sacrosanct nature of marriage under Hindu law, emphasizing that its dissolution should not be undertaken lightly or on trivial grounds. The judges remarked:
“Marriage between two Hindus is sacrosanct, and its dissolution would be permissible only for reasons recognized in law. On routine grounds of mutual incompatibility, it would not be open for the parties to seek exemption from the one-year limitation.”
2. Purpose of One-Year Waiting Period: The court highlighted that the statutory one-year period serves a meaningful purpose, allowing couples time to reconcile and reflect on their decision before seeking divorce. It stated:
“The provision contained under Section 14 of the Act has a laudable object to subserve. The legislature has imposed an embargo in entertaining an application for dissolution of marriage within one year to prevent impulsive decisions and ensure serious consideration before taking such a step.”
3. Strict Interpretation of Proviso: The court stressed that the proviso to Section 14 should only be invoked in cases involving exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, which must be explicitly demonstrated through clear and compelling evidence. The judges noted:
“The jurisdiction of the court under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act mandatorily restricts invocation to the existence of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity. On facts, the necessary ingredients for invoking jurisdiction under the proviso are not shown to exist in this case.”
4. Inadequacy of Routine Grounds: The court remarked that routine issues such as mutual incompatibility and failure to live together cannot qualify as exceptional circumstances. It observed:
“On routine grounds of incompatibility between the parties and their failure to live together, it would not be open for the parties to seek exemption from the statutory one-year waiting period.”
Decision of the Court
After carefully reviewing the facts of the case and the arguments presented, the High Court upheld the decision of the Family Court, Saharanpur. It dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellants had failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity to warrant a waiver of the statutory one-year waiting period.
The court stated that there was no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s refusal to grant permission to file the divorce petition within the first year of marriage. However, it clarified that the appellants would be free to file a fresh petition after the completion of the one-year period mandated by Section 14.
