Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Rishu Aggarwal - Appellant
Versus
Mohit Goyal - Respondent
MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 110 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 41458 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mridul Aggarwal, Advocate, Deeksha Aggarwal, Advocate, Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mridul Aggarwal, Advocate, Deeksha Aggarwal, Advocate, Preetesh Kapur, Advocate

Denial of conjugal relationship, in itself, does not amount to 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' as contemplated under the proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:
FAMILY COURT - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13B(1) - SECTION 14 - SECTION 13B(2) - SECTION 14(1) - PROVISO - SECTION 13(1)(ia) - SECTION 13(2)(ii) - SECTION 12 - RATHEESH M. V. DHANYA K. V. - SHIVANI YADAV V. AMIT YADAV - AMARDEEP SINGH V. HARVEEN KAUR - MITEN V. UOI - SANKALP SINGH V. PRARTHANA CHANDRA - ARPIT GARG V. AYUSHI JAISWAL - MEGANATHA NAYAGAR V. SUSHEELA - RITA NIJHAWAN V BAL KISHAN NIJAWAN - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14 TO SECTION 13B - WAIVER OF ONE YEAR SEPARATION PERIOD - EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP OR DEPRAVITY - DENIAL OF CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP - MEANING OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP AND DEPRAVITY - PURPOSE OF SECTION 14 - PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE AS AN INSTITUTION - CRUELTY - CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE - IMPOTENCE - ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, husband and wife, filed a joint petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent, along with an application under the proviso to Section 14, for leave to present the petition before the expiry of the cooling-off period of one year from the date of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the application and consequently, the petition as well, as it was filed before the expiry of one year period. The appellants contended that denial of sex from both sides led to a situation of 'exceptional hardship'/ 'exceptional depravity' and sought to satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Section 14.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for the waiver of the one-year separation period for filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent, is applicable to Section 13B of the Act. However, the Court clarified that the waiver of the one-year period is not a matter of right but is subject to the satisfaction of the Court that the case is one of 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' on the part of the respondent. The Court further held that denial of conjugal relationship, in itself, does not amount to 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' as contemplated under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act. The Court observed that the denial of conjugal relationship is a ground for divorce under the Act, but it cannot be equated with 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity', which are intended to be extenuating circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to Section 14 applies to Section 13B(1), thereby permitting the waiver of mandatory one year separation period envisaged in Section 13B? 2. If yes, whether the denial of conjugal relationship tantamounts to 'exceptional depravity' or 'exceptional hardship' as contemplated under the proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for the waiver of the one-year separation period for filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent, is applicable to Section 13B of the Act. 2. Denial of conjugal relationship, in itself, does not amount to 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' as contemplated under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Family Court rejecting the application of the parties filed under the proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

History/ Brief Facts:

1. The appellant/ petitioner no. 1/ wife has preferred the present appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts act, 1984 to quash and set aside the judgment dated 16.10.2021, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in HMa No. 1187 of 2021 titled as Rishu aggarwal and Mohit Goyal. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition by the impugned judgment, which was preferred by the appellant/ petitioner no. 1/ wife and respondent/ petitioner no. 2/ husband under Section 13B of HMa 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The Family Court dismissed the application under Section 14 of the act and, consequently, the petition as well, as it was filed before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 04.04.2021 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ram Nagar, Uttarakhand. The appellant, after marriage, shifted to the matrimonial home of the respondent at Faridabad, Haryana.

3. Soon after the marriage, marital differences cropped up between the parties, and from 14.04.2021 onwards, they started living separately albeit in the same house. On 29.07.2021, the appellant left her matrimonial home and went to her parental house at Rohini, Delhi. The appellant and respondent hardly lived together as husband and wife, and no child has been born out of the wedlock.

4. Notably, it is stated that the parties decided to live separately due to temperamental differences. Their parents, relatives and friends made sincere efforts to save their marriage and to reconcile the matter. However, all the efforts were in vain and the parties could not settle their matrimonial differences. Seeing no possibility of reconciliation, the appellant and the respondent decided to seek dissolution of their marriage. accordingly, they executed an MOU dated 16.09.2021, settling their disputes and undertaking to co-operate with each other to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955. The parties have no claims against each other, and there is no pending litigation between them.

5. Thereafter, both parties returned/ exchanged the articles that were given to each other at the time of marriage. The belongings, stridhan, etc., of the appellant have also been returned by the respondent, and nothing is left to be returned.

6. accordingly, in pursuance of the aforementioned MOU, a joint petition under Section 13B (1) of the act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed by both the parties, incorporating the terms of settlement arrived between the parties, as contained in the MOU.

7. The parties filed the petition under Section 13B (1) along with an application under the proviso to Section 14 of the act, for leave to present the petition before the expiry of the cooling-off period of one year from the date of marriage.

8. In the said application, the appellants sought to satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Section 14, by stating that there was denial of sex from both sides which led to a situation of 'exceptional hardship'/ 'exceptional depravity'. For clarity, the reasons, as stated in the application, are reproduced as under:

'11. The petitioners submit that their marriage could not be consummated and within few days of the marriage the parties were living separately, initially in separate rooms of the matrimonial house, due to their vast temperamental differences since 14.04.2021, and there was denial of sex from both sides,which fact itself is an exceptional hardship/depravity on the part of the petitioners to each other, making it a fit case to be dealt with under the present application.

In an identical situation, the Kerala High Court has dealt with the issue in "2019 SCC Online KER 14813, titled as 'Ratheesh M. vs Dhanya K. V' as under:

'... 3. admittedly, the aforesaid original