JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat, vide which the application moved under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'HMA') was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a petition under Section 13-B of HMA was instituted by the parties seeking divorce by way of mutual consent. Marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 30.01.2025. After living together and the marriage having been consummated, temperamental differences arose between the parties. Under the circumstances, a petition under Section 13-B of HMA (Annexure P-2) was filed for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent. The petition was accompanied by an application under Section 14 of HMA, seeking permission to file the petition within one year of the marriage and to waive of the mandatory period of one year.

3. By way of impugned order dated 25.08.2025, the application under Section 14 of HMA was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court concerned erred in rejecting the said application. He submits that it was duly mentioned in the application that petitioner No.2, i.e. the husband, is working in Infosys and has been selected for a job in the United States of America from October, 2025 to 28.09.2028 on an H1-B work permit. As a result, it would not be possible for him to appear in the petition preferred under Section 13 B of HMA. It was also averred that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties and that the dispute had already been amicably settled. He submits that despite that, the application was dismissed, ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746; and a Division Bench of this Court in Mandeep Kaur v. Rajiv Girdhar, 2024(1) PLR 83 (FAO-6479-2023, decided on 19.12.2023).

5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. There would be no necessity of issuing notice to the respondent, for, in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, no prejudice would be caused to him.

7. The application filed under Section 14 of HMA, along with the petition moved under Section 13B of HMA, duly gave a valid ground for seeking permission of the Court to file the petition before the completion of one year from the date of marriage. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said reason would be sufficient to permit the petitioner to file the petition under Section 13B of HMA prior to the lapse of the mandatory one year period. A Division Bench of this Court also, while analyzing the statutory provision and the law on the subject in the case of Mandeep Kaur v. Rajiv Girdhar (supra), enunciated the following principles:

'10. The principles of law, as can be culled out from above said discussion, are enumerated as below:

I. Section 14 the Act applies completely to Section 13B of the Act as well i.e. parties can apply for permission, to file a petition for divorce by way of mutual consent, within one year of date of marriage.

II. The Court is not to ordinarily enter into an elaborate enquiry while considering an application under Section 14(1) of the Act especially with respect to a petition under Section 13B of the Act since the Court is required to take a pacifist view point when dealing with a case under Section 13B of the Act. The Court would generally consider the pleadings and material placed before it to take a view. However, if the facts and circumstances of a case so warrant, Court may undertake an elaborate enquiry.

III. While granting or refusing permission under Section 14(1) of the Act, the Court ought to consider the following factors:

The factors enumerated herein above are illustrative in nature and not exhau