The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant exemption for filing a divorce by mutual consent prior to the expiry of one year after the marriage if the essential reasons for exemption are satisfied, and the continuation of the marriage would cause undue hardship to both parties.

( 1 ) EVEN though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent it is taken up for final disposal. This petition is filed questioning the order passed by the principal Family Court Judge in MC No. 508/2007 dismissing the application filed jointly by both the petitioner and respondent under sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') seeking exemption in filing the consent petition under Sec. 13 B of the Act within one year of the marriage.

( 2 ) SMT Sweety E M w/o Sri Sunil Kumar K B and Sri Sunil kumar K B filed a petition under Sec. 13-B of the Actr/w Sec. 7 of the Family Court's Act 1984 seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. Since the petition was filed prior to the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage i. e. , 31-10-2006, both the petitioner and respondents filed an application under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act to exempt passage of one year for filing the mutual consent petition. The learned Judge rejected the said application.

( 3 ) THE relevant portion of Sec. 14 (1) reads as under:

"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 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 be made by the High court in that behalf, allow a petition to be presented (before one year as elapsed)since the date of the marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent, but if it appears to the court at the hearing of the petition that the petitioner obtained leave to present the petition by any misrepresentation or concealment of the nature of the case, the court may, if it pronounces a decree, do so subject to the condition that the decree shall not have effect until after the (expiry of one year)from the date of the marriage or may dismiss the petition without prejudice to any petition which may be brought after the (expiration of the said one year) upon the same or substantially the same facts as those alleged in support of the petition so dismissed. "

( 4 ) IN the joint affidavit filed before the family court, it is stated that the plea of exemption be granted as they never resided together from the very first day of the marriage and the marriage also has not been consummated. That the parties have realized that there were certain differences which cannot be ironed out and both of them being professionals will suffer mental as well as physical hardship on account of continuation of marriage and a divorce by mutual consent will enable them to rearrange their life matrimonially as well as career wise. Another reason which is forth coming from the affidavit filed before this court as well as before the trial court is that the petitioner-wife is not willing to join the respondent-husband who is working abroad. It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that soon after the marriage the respondent left Bangalore and has been working in UK. He is holding a responsible post at UK and is not in a position to lose the job and return to India and join her. The petitioner being an employee in a private company is not interested in joining her husband who is staying abroad. Hence both of them have lost the hope of reunion and that they are not in a position to lead a happy married life. In this back-ground they sought exemption in filing the consent petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act within one year of the marriage. The learned trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that there are no exceptional circumstances pleaded in the application to grant the application under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act. Indeed