IMPORTANT POINTS
The marriage did not last even for a day and there was no consummation, this court came to the conclusion that it would be impossible for the parties to continue the relationship any further and that there was no chance of any reunion and leave was granted to present the petition for divorce before the lapse of one year.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Death of a marriage takes place slowly in most cases. Small bickerings transform into longer squabbles and then turn into unending fights over a period of time and ultimately, end in a court of law as divorce proceedings. In certain rare cases, like the one on hand, death of a marriage takes place overnight. However, law compels them to wait for one year before they can even present a petition for divorce.

2. The parties to the marriage involved in this case, stayed together only on their wedding night. To put an end to the misery of two irreconcilable souls, law governing them, requires a waiting period. Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “The Act”) requires that one year must elapse since the date of marriage, for presenting a petition for divorce. Together, they sought a waiver of the said period of one year. Family Court refused. They seek the intervention of this Court to come to their aid.

3. The factual narration, as stated in this petition challenging the refusal of the Family Court to grant permission to present the petition for dissolution of marriage even before the lapse of one year, can be described in brief as follows.

4. The marriage was consecrated on 7.11.2019 as per the Hindu religious rites. They remained together only on their wedding night. The 2nd petitioner left the house of the 1st petitioner in the morning of the day after the marriage and thereafter they have been living separately. They had no physical relationship and have not been able to arrive at a consensus regarding their future life together. In spite of several attempts at mediation through relatives, the only consensus that they could arrive at, was to dissolve their marital tie. While seeking leave to institute the divorce petition, after waiving the time period of one year, stipulated under Section 14 of The Act, petitioners state that both parties had no mental stress in arriving at the conclusion to separate and on the contrary, they state that, continuing their relationship causes greater mental trauma and agony.

5. Petitioners jointly filed an application on 11.1.2020 before the Family Court, Palakkad seeking permission to file a petition for divorce. By order dated 25.1.2020 in I.A. No.113 of 2020 in Unnumbered OP of 2020, the said court dismissed the application stating that from the averments in the petition, it is seen that, the parties have decided to prefer the joint petition for divorce without even living together. The learned Judge further observed that “avoiding the marriage solemnized customarily after one day or one week as if they are removing their coat because of the ego of the parties is not something which is contemplated by the law and it will not augur well to the society also”. According to the learned Judge, the decision to part with is not a matured and well considered one. This original petition is filed challenging the said order.

6. We have heard Sri. M. Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:

“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 has 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 natu