Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh, J.
Angad Soni – Appellant
versus
Arpita Yadav – Respondent
First Appeal Defective No.115 of 2025
Decided on 29.5.2025

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Maria Fatima, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nadeem Murtaza, Shhreiya Agarawal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Prateek Yadav, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce by mutual consent – Relaxation of minimum statutory period is permissible in cases of exceptional hardship to appellant or of exceptional depravity on part of respondent.

Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 14 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Divorce by mutual consent – Relaxation of minimum statutory period – Once application under Section 14 (1) of Act, 1955 is filed before court, court has to see whether there is exceptional hardship to petitioner or exceptional depravity on part of respondent – In present case, criminal cases have been filed by respondent and there is no chance that marriage will subsist – Proviso to Section 14(1) of Act, 1955 is to be invoked, so that parties may get divorce and lead their peaceful life – When both parties are voluntarily inclined to withdraw relationship and do not want to continue with relationship at all and they also want to enjoy their life by parting their ways, application filed under Section 14(1) of Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of CPC should be allowed treating the case is one of exceptional hardship to appellant or of exceptional depravity on part of respondent as continuance of litigation will cause mental and physical harassment to them unnecessarily – Impugned order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, set aside and application filed by appellant under Section 14(1) of Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of CPC allowed. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

Heard.

2. Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient.

3. Application is accordingly allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is treated to have been filed in time.

Order on Memo of Appeal

4. This appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Application No.24 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act, 1955”) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

5. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the appeal, are that marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 05.08.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and a written notarial marriage deed was executed on 12.08.2024 between the appellant and the respondent. On 03.09.2024, both the parties again solemnized their marriage second time as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Since hostility developed between the appellant and respondent, therefore, appellant preferred an application through IGRS Portal on 10.09.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar stating therein that he is under threat for false complaints to be lodged by the respondent. In retaliation, respondent lodged an FIR bearing No.96 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ambedkar Nagar. Respondent filed an application on 24.09.2024 before the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar stating therein that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and she wanted to withdraw the aforesaid FIR lodged on 11.09.2024. Since there was no progress in the marital relations between the parties and an altercation took place between them, respondent on 29.11.2024 again lodged an FIR bearing No.261 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar. Thereafter, appellant filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9400 of 2024 before this Court seeking to quash the FIR. This Court on 12.12.2024 passed an interim order staying the arrest of the appellant and referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent by 19.12.2024. On 06.12.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar issued summoning order in Criminal Case No.28 of 2024, State Vs. Angad Soni and others, arising out of FIR No.96 of 2024 against the brother and sister-in-law of the appellant.

6. Since the relations between the appellant and the respondent was not cordial and hostility was going on, they filed a petition under Section 13-B along with an application under Section 14 of the Act, 1955. The learned Family Court rejected the said application vide impugned order by recording a finding that since the cause of action for filing a suit for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 arises only after the lapse of one year from the date of separate living, therefore, application under Section 14 of the Act, 1955 cannot be allowed by relaxing the said period.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that opening line of Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 begins with the expression “subject to the provisions of this Act” which clearly establishes that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 are subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, 1955 including one contained under Section 14 of the Act, 1955 and also the proviso appended thereof. For the sake of convenience, Sections 13-B and 14 of the Act, 1955 are quoted below:-

“13-B. Divorce by mutual consent.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together

Click Here to Read the rest of this document