The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'exceptional hardship' under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing for the waiver of the one-year period for filing a petition for dissolution of marriage.

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order dated 10.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2022 in un-numbered H.M.O.P. No._____ of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. G. Ramesh Babu.

3. The petitioners herein jointly filed the above said Original Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) along with I.A.No.20 of 2022 under Section 14(1) of the Act to waive the one year period for filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A, it was inter alia averred that the petitioners’ marriage was solemnized on 15.08.2021 and they are living separately from 18.08.2021 onwards. Their marriage was not consummated due to temperaments and ideas, they are unable to mingle with each other and they are living separately according to their wish and will. It is further stated that several mediations were held, but the same proved futile. It is further stated that there is no physical relationship between them, they arrived at consensus regarding their future life and came to a conclusion to dissolve the marriage and therefore filed the petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also averred that since 5 months onwards they were living separately and there is no chance for re-union. While stating that if the marriage is not dissolved, it would cause more stress and trauma, they sought for waiver of statutory period for filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

5. The said application was rejected, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the Order of the learned Trial Judge is unsustainable and amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. He also submits that the impugned Order is contrary to the scope and spirit of Section 14(1) of the Act. He also submits that the learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated that the petitioners lived together for 3 days only from the date of their marriage, thereafter they are living separately and there are no chances of re-union and in such other circumstances, the period of one year for divorce by mutual consent ought to have been waived, treating the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioners.

7. He further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that both the parties have categorically stated the reasons asserting that continuation of marriage would not be possible and erred in dismissing the I.A by placing reliance on the decision of a learned Judge in Savanam Giridhar Reddy vs. Savanam Pavani, 2022 (1) Lawsuit 86, though the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, the decisions of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Shivani Yadav vs. Amit Yadav, FAO No.658 of 2021 and the Kerala High Court in Vishnudas H. and Another vs. Nil, 2020 (7) KLR 693, the learned counsel would submit that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside.

9. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the validity of the Order under Revision, it may be appropriate to extract the provision of Law, relevant to the present context:-

“14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage.

Provided that the Court may, upon application made to it in accordance with such rules as may b