PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, Sneh Prashar, JJ.
Sakshi - Appellant
Versus
Abhinandan Sharma - Respondent
F.A.O. No. M-295 of 2014
Decided On : 08-12-2014
Section 14 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [Section 14(1)] - [Summary of the Act and Section]: The court discussed the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which requires a one-year waiting period before filing a petition for divorce, unless exceptional hardship or depravity is proven. The proviso allows for the court's discretion to grant permission to file the petition before one year in such cases. The court emphasized the importance of observing the requirements of the provision unless exceptional hardship is demonstrated.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife sought permission to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the expiry of the statutory one-year period of marriage. The trial court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional hardship or depravity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship or depravity, emphasizing the importance of observing the statutory waiting period to allow time for reconciliation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could demonstrate exceptional hardship or depravity to seek permission for filing a divorce petition before the expiry of the statutory one-year period of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory waiting period for filing a divorce petition is crucial to allow time for reconciliation, unless exceptional hardship or depravity is proven.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2014 vide which the application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") seeking permission to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before expiry of statutory period of one year of the marriage, filed together by appellant-wife Sakshi and respondent-husband Abhinandan Sharma, was dismissed. The facts quoted in the impugned order are as under:--
"Appellant Smt. Sakshi was married to respondent Abhinandan Sharma on 08.02.2014. After the marriage, they resided together as husband and wife at Ludhiana upto 16.03.2014. It was alleged that the marriage could not be consummated because of incompatibility of temperaments and certain misunderstanding between the parties. Ultimately, both the parties fell apart and were residing separately since 16.03.2014. All efforts made for reconciliation and reunion failed and ultimately to resolve the dispute the parties by way of mutual agreement dated 01.07.2014 decided to seek divorce by mutual consent invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Alongwith the petition, an application under Section 14 of the Act of 1955 was filed seeking permission to present the petition before expiry of stipulated period of one year from the date of marriage."
2. Considering all facts and circumstances put forth by the parties, learned trial Court finding that the petitioner could not make out a case of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity declined to condone the period and dismissed the application.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.
4. Heard the submissions made by Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.
5. Section 14(1) of the Act of 1955 postulates that it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, unless on the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of marriage. However, there is a save clause to the statutory condition in the proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1955, which reads as follows:--
"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 present by 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."
6. The above proviso crystallizes that if the Court is satisfied about the existence of the ingredients of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act of 1955 i.e. that the parties are able to make out a case of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent that the Court can grant permission to present the petition for divorce even before the expiry of one year since the date of marriage.
7. Coming to the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that since the marriage between the parties had not been consummated and there was no possibility of reconciliation and with the help of respectables and elders of both the families they had resolved to seek divorce by mutual consent, the petition under Section 13Bof the Act of 1955 before expiry of stipulated period of one year from the date of marriage was filed and alongwith the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.