IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Jatin Khurana ….Appellant versus Yashika ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate, for appellant.

Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate, for respondent.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Present appeal is directed against the order dated

04.12.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal, whereby an application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’) for waiving off the mandatory period of one year from the date of marriage was dismissed, and consequently the petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent, was also dismissed being premature.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 19.05.2024, but no Muklawa ceremony had taken place. Hence, both the parties have been living separately since 19.05.2024. Consequently, they filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act, seeking decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. Along with the said petition, they also filed an application under Section 14 of the Act, with a prayer that mandatory period of one year of marriage before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, be waived off. However, the learned Family Court dismissed the said application, vide impugned order dated 04.12.2024 holding that no serious effort for reconciliation between the parties were made, especially keeping in view the fact that the parties had not resided together even for a single day. It was further held that no exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity would be caused to the parties, if they would wait for a period of one year. Consequently, the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was also dismissed being premature.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife does not controvert the facts, as stated in the petition. It is stated on behalf of both the parties that the parties are living separately and have already decided to dissolve their marriage.

4. From the perusal of file, it is borne out that marriage between the parties was solemnized on

19.05.2024. The parties have been living separately since 19.05.2024 and that the marriage was never consummated. Perusal of file further shows that the parties have settled all their claims as to Istridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony etc. with their own consent out of Court in every manner, whatsoever, and it was further settled between them that there shall be no claim of anyone of them over any right, title and interest in the property of each other as well as their parents and neither shall any litigation be filed against each other.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgments in the case of Mandeep Kaur Bajwa v. Chetanjeet Singh Randhawa, reported as 2015 (40) RCR (Civil) 198 as well as on Manpreet Kaur v. Gagandeep Singh (FAO-3897-2022 (O&M) decided on 15.12.2022) to argue that in the aforesaid cases, considering the marriageable age of the parties as well as the fact that the parties had lived together as husband and wife for about 3- 6 months after marriage, their application filed under Section 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year to present the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, before expiry of one year, was allowed. The parties therein were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the sole issue which arises for our consideration is, whether it is a fit case for grant of permission for filing a divorce petition before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage of the parties, in terms of Section 14 of the Act?

7. In order to answer this issue, it would be apt to reproduce Sections 13-B and 14 of the Act which read as under:-

“13-B. Divorce by mutual consent. (1) Subject to the provi