The statutory mandate under Section 14 of the HMA serves a crucial purpose in discouraging hasty dissolution of marriages and ensuring due deliberation before seeking divorce.
Orissa High Court: In an appeal challenging the Family Court’s rejection of a divorce petition, the Division Bench comprising BR Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., allowed the husband’s plea despite the statutory bar under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Court exercised its discretion in light of the prolonged separation between the parties and the advanced stage of litigation, thereby condoning the requirement of the one-year waiting period under Section 14.
The couple began experiencing serious marital discord within a month of their wedding. Matters worsened when the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and refused to return, despite repeated efforts by the husband and his family. Attempts at reconciliation through elders and mediators were unsuccessful, as the wife remained firm on not resuming cohabitation. In 2020, the husband filed for divorce within two months of marriage, raising objections under Section 14 HMA, which prohibits filing for divorce within one year unless exceptional hardship or depravity is demonstrated.
Despite the statutory bar, the Family Court entertained the petition, with both parties leading evidence and contesting the case on merits, without objecting to its maintainability. Ultimately, the Court held that the husband had not substantiated his claims of cruelty or desertion under the HMA. It further observed that he did not make genuine attempts at reconciliation prior to seeking divorce.
The Court stated that Section 14 of HMA creates a statutory bar on the presentation of a divorce petition within one year of marriage, to ensures that matrimonial disputes are not brought prematurely before Courts, allowing spouses uses a reasonable opportunity to reconcile and prevent hasty dissolutions of marriage.
The Court observed that in rare and exceptional situations, a rigid application of Section 14 HMA could cause undue hardship to a spouse who has genuinely endured severe cruelty or deprivation within a brief period of marriage.
Referring to Alka Saxena v. Pankaj Saxena, the Court reiterated that the statutory bar under Section 14 is mandatory unless a separate application seeking leave is filed and granted. In the absence of such an application, the divorce petition itself is deemed non-maintainable. The proviso to Section 14(1), however, allows for relaxation of this bar in exceptional cases—either where the petitioner suffers exceptional hardship or where the respondent exhibits exceptional depravity.
The Court further underlined that the discretion to permit early filing of a divorce petition lies with the Court and must be exercised based on a properly substantiated application. Even when such permission is granted, the Court may still defer the decree’s operation until the completion of one year from the date of marriage or may dismiss the petition if it finds that leave was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.
In the present case, the Court observed that the marriage was solemnized on 13-05-2020, and the divorce petition was filed on 07-07-2020—barely two months later—thus clearly attracting the statutory bar under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court remarked that the Family Court should have halted the proceedings at the threshold.
However, by the time the Family Court delivered its judgment, nearly three years had passed since the marriage. Considering the unusual facts and the considerable time lapse, the Court deemed it fair and appropriate to remand the matter for fresh adjudication instead of dismissing it solely on procedural grounds. It also noted that the parties had been living separately for nearly five years.
Accordingly, the Court condoned the statutory limitation under Section 14 and granted leave in favour of the husband, directing the Family Court to dispose of the matter within four months.
The Court, however, clarified that this order should not be treated as a general precedent for accepting divorce petitions in contravention of Section 14 HMA.