JUDGMENT :

1. We ruined each other by being together!

2. We destroyed each other’s dreams!!

3. Archi Agarwal and Pratyush Chaube, who are the wife and husband, have jointly approached this Court under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, whereby the application preferred by the appellants under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “1955 Act”) for exemption/waiver of one year period from the date of marriage for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the 1955 Act has been rejected.

4. According to the appellants, their marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2018 as per the Hindu rites and rituals but on account of non-consummation of marriage, both the appellants started residing separately since 29.06.2018. Without there being any undue influence, threat and coercion, the couple decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce. Consequently, they preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the 1995 Act for divorce out of their own free will along with an application under Section 14 of the 1955 Act for seeking exemption of one year prescribed for presentation of a divorce petition. However, the application filed by the appellants under Section 14 has been rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court by the impugned order.

5. Hence the instant first appeal.

6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Principal Judge, Family Court while passing the order dated 08.01.2019 has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) as it does not deal with Section 14 of the 1955 Act. As a matter of fact, the said judgment has been passed in respect of waiver of six months period as prescribed in Section 13-B between first and second motion. The Principal Judge, Family Court has wrongly held that the application under Section- 14 is not in accordance with the law and rejected the same.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties due to their ideological differences as also after solemnization of marriage, the marriage has not been consummated by the appellants and they are not living as husband and wife since 29.6.2018. i.e. since last nine months.

8. We have examined the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

9. Under section 13 of the 1955 Act marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on the various grounds enumerated therein and the same has been further qualified by Section 14 that no petition for divorce to be presented within one year of the marriage. However, an exception has been carved out by inserting a proviso in Section 14, with an intention to mollify the effect of the one year's limit in very exceptional cases as the proviso to Section 14 of the HM Act engrafts a very important qualification on the general rule laid down in the section that no petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce can be entertained by the court before the statutory period expires. It enables the court in the exercise of its discretion to grant leave to present such petition before the expiry of the one year's limit in a case of 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' to the appellants.

10. Insofar as reliance placed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Amardeep Singh (supra) while passing the impugned order is concerned, we find that waiver of the waiting period prescribed in Section 13B (2) of 1955 Act has been considered by the Apex Court in Amardeep Singh (supra), wherein Section 13B (2) has been interpreted to be procedural in nature, the spirit of the said provision has been highlighted and the Court observed that in cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the waiting period can be waived by the court to enable parties to rehabilitate themselv