Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
Sukanya Haridasan K.H
– Appellant
Versus
Havin Sajee – Respondent
OP (FC) 574 2022
Divorce - Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1)(i)(ia), Section 14(1) - The Court analyzed the provisions regarding premature divorce petitions, emphasizing the parameters for 'exceptional hardship' and 'exceptional depravity,' leading to the decision to set aside the Family Court's dismissal of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought dissolution of marriage within one year of marriage registration, alleging no consummation and lack of intimacy. The Family Court dismissed the interlocutory application to waive the one-year waiting period under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the Family Court's rejection of the petitioner's application to waive the one-year period under Section 14(1) was warranted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 'exceptional hardship' and 'exceptional depravity' must be assessed based on specific situations, and the Family Court must conduct a proper inquiry into these factors before dismissing applications.
Final Decision: The original petition is allowed, setting aside the Family Court's order and directing reconsideration of the application.
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner filed an original petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 03.02.2022 at Pottayil Temple, Eroor. The marriage was registered before the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Thripunithura. In the original petition, it is averred that after the registration of marriage, the petitioner returned to her house and the respondent returned to U.K. on the very next day. Thus, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not consummated. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was aged 27 years and the respondent was aged 29 years. Though the respondent contacted the petitioner in the initial days, he never showed any intimacy towards her. He had not taken any initiative for taking the petitioner to UK or live with her. With those allegations that the petitioner filed original petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam, which was accompanied by I.A.No.5271 of 2022, an application seeking leave to present the petition for divorce within a period of one year from the date of marriage, considering the exceptional hardship of the petitioner. The Family Court, by the order dated 27.08.2022 dismissed that interlocutory application, even without issuing notice to the respondent. In the said order, the Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that no exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity is pointed out in that interlocutory application in order to grant leave to present the petition for divorce by waiving the period of one year from the date of the marriage stipulated under Section 14 (1) of the Act.
2. On 10.10.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondent by speed post returnable by today. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondent in his local address at Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish e-mail ID of the respondent within two days and Registry was directed to issue notice to the respondent through e-mail as well.
3. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, Registry reported that notice was sent to the respondent through e-mail as directed in the order dated 10.10.2022 with the hearing date as 27.10.2022 (today), along with a copy of this original petition and a copy of the order dated 10.10.2022. The acknowledgment card of the notice to the respondent in his local address is also returned with signature.
4. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.2022 of the Family Court, Ernakulam, whereby the application made by the petitioner, invoking the provisions under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act stands rejected for the reasons stated therein.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Mat.Appeal No.623 of
2020.
7. Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads thus;
“14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage — (1) Notwithstanding anything con- tained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a mar- riage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage:
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 ap- pears to the court at the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
