Marriage Registration Not Proof Of Marital Harmony, Can't Be Used To Deny Mutual Divorce Before One Year: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere registration of marriage between two individuals cannot determine matrimonial harmony or their intention to cohabit together.

“Registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship,” a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed.

The Bench was dealing with a wife's plea challenging a family court order rejecting her application seeking leave to present a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage.

The parties never cohabited even for a single day, the marriage was never consummated, and immediately after the marriage, both continued to reside separately at their respective parental homes. The joint petition for divorce was presented within seven months of marriage.

Vide the impugned order, the Family Court declined to grant leave under Section 14 of HMA, holding that the parties failed to establish a case of “exceptional hardship” warranting relaxation of the statutory bar.

It also 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.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench observed that it was admitted fact that the parties never cohabited, the marriage was never consummated, and they had lived separately since the very inception of the marriage.

Observing that the facts strike at the very foundation of a subsisting matrimonial relationship, the Court said:

“….insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation, thereby causing avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute.”

It held that the case squarely fell within the exception carved out under Section 14 of the HMA and allowed the couple's application while granting them leave to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent.

“The matter is remanded to the learned Family Court concerned to proceed with the petition under Section 13-B HMA in accordance with law, expeditiously,” the Court said.

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order