$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20.01.2026 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025 NUPUR GARG .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Wadhwa, Mr. Somyaa Gurung & Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Advs.

with appellant in person.

versus DWARKESH AHUJA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dhiraj Bhiduri, Adv. with respondent present through VC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT

%

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) against the Order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi (“Family Court”) in HMA No. 1821 of 2025, whereby the appellant’s application under Section 14 HMA seeking leave to present a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (1) HMA prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage, was dismissed, and consequentially, the main petition was also held to be not maintainable.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.03.2025 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Khirki Village, New Delhi. Subsequently, the marriage was registered on 02.04.2025 before the Office of the District Magistrate, South, New Delhi. It is an admitted position that the parties never cohabited even for a single day, the marriage was never consummated, and immediately after the marriage, both parties continued to reside separately at their respective parental homes.

3. Thereafter, owing to irreconcilable differences and complete incompatibility discovered immediately after marriage, the parties jointly decided to seek dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

4. Since the joint petition under Section 13-B(1) HMA was presented within seven months of marriage, an application under Section 14 HMA was filed seeking leave of the Court to present the petition prior to expiry of one year.

5. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court declined to grant leave under Section 14 HMA, holding that the parties had failed to establish a case of “exceptional hardship” warranting relaxation of the statutory bar. Further, it held that they had not made sufficient or sincere efforts to preserve and save the marriage, and that the subsequent registration of the marriage shortly after its solemnization militated against and diluted their claim of exceptional hardship.

6. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the respondent is presently residing in Canada, whereas the appellant is residing in India. It is further submitted that the appellant is required to take care of her aged parents and is neither willing nor in a position to relocate, while the respondent is similarly not willing or able to relocate to India. These circumstances, though unfortunate, are stated to be unavoidable and beyond the control of the parties, and have resulted in their continued separation, with no realistic or practical possibility of resumption of matrimonial life, thereby giving rise to exceptional hardship.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note the Section 13-B(1) HMA, which reads as under:

“(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, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.”

9. Section 14 HMA provides as under:

“(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 e