Special Marriage Act | 1-Year Waiting Period For Filing Divorce Plea Can Be Waived In Cases Of 'Exceptional Hardship': Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory one-year waiting period for filing a divorce petition under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, can be waived in exceptional circumstances where continuation of the marriage would only prolong the parties' hardship.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar allowed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking waiver of the statutory period prescribed under Section 29 read with Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act.
The Court observed that where a marriage is only notional, has never been consummated, and has received no social or familial acceptance, insistence on the statutory waiting period would serve no meaningful purpose.
The case concerned a couple belonging to different faiths who had married under the Special Marriage Act on August 25, 2025.
According to the parties, disclosure of the marriage led to severe familial consequences. The husband's father allegedly collapsed from shock and was subsequently diagnosed with liver failure, while the respondent-wife feared similar repercussions from her own family and therefore concealed the marriage from them.
The plea seeking waiver of the statutory one-year bar under Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act and the cooling-off period was rejected by the Family Court, which held that the case did not disclose “exceptional hardship” and that the parties had not made efforts to save the marriage.
Setting aside the Family Court's order, the High Court held that the statutory timelines under Sections 28 and 29 of the Special Marriage Act are intended to protect the institution of marriage but also confer discretion upon courts to relax such requirements in appropriate cases.
The Bench noted that the present case clearly disclosed “exceptional hardship” within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act.
“It is an admitted position that the marriage between the parties was purely notional, without any cohabitation, consummation, or social and familial recognition. There is no child born out of the wedlock and the parties never resided together. The circumstances, as stated by the parties, namely, the severe familial estrangement faced by the appellant, the serious medical condition of his father and the respondent's apprehension of similar consequences clearly constitutes 'exceptional hardship' within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act,” the Court said.
It further observed that compelling the parties to wait for one year would only prolong their agony and run contrary to the object of the statute.
“In such a situation wherein, the parties are also ad idem for dissolution of marriage, insisting upon adherence to the statutory period of one year would serve no meaningful purpose. On the contrary, it would only result in prolongation of hardship, being contrary to the legislative intent and object of the Act,” the Court said.
It held that the Family Court adopted a restrictive and hyper-technical interpretation of the law, and thus, allowed the waiver application.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench directed the Family Court to entertain the mutual consent divorce petition without insisting on the one-year statutory period.
Title: SK v. KS