S. 14 HMA | Separate Application Showing Exceptional Hardship/ Depravity Must Be Filed For Seeking Divorce Before 1 Year Of Marriage: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has held that since Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA') bars presentation of petition for divorce within one year of marriage, the petitioner must file a separate application canvassing 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' by the respondent, in order to waive the mandatory waiting period of one year as per the proviso to Section 14(1).Underlining the statutory requirement, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –“The Court retains discretion in such cases to allow the petition to be presented within one year, provided the plea is substantiated through a separate application seeking permission to file for divorce prematurely.”Case BackgroundThe appellant-husband and the respondent-wife got married on May 13, 2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After solemnisation of marriage, they began their marital life at the husband's residence. However, within a very short span of time, they developed marital discord, leading to serious disputes and allegations from both the parties.The situation worsened so much that the wife left the matrimonial home on June 24, 2020, just over a month after her marriage. It was alleged that despite repeated requests from the appellant and his family, she did not return for which the appellant presented a petition before the Family Court, Bhadrak on July 07, 2020 seeking divorce from the respondent-wife.Despite the statutory bar under Section 14 of the HMA for presentation and entertainment of petition for divorce within one year of marriage, the Court proceeded with the matter and allowed both the parties to adduce evidence and contest the case on merits.After analysing the pleadings, evidence and arguments, the Court dismissed the husband's prayer for grant of divorce as he failed to establish cruelty or desertion on the part of the wife. It also censored the husband for hastily approaching the Court to dissolve the marriage without putting genuine endeavours for reconciliation. Being aggrieved, he impugned the judgment in this matrimonial appeal.Court's ObservationsAt the outset, the Court noted that Section 14 of the HMA puts a legal bar on the presentation of a divorce petition within one year of marriage. It held the provision has been created to ensure that matrimonial disputes are not brought 'prematurely' before Courts, allowing spouses a reasonable opportunity to reconcile and prevent any hasty dissolution of marital relations.The Bench outlined two-fold objectives behind the enactment of the said provision, i.e. (i) to protect the sanctity of marriage and ensure spouses make sincere efforts at reconciliation before seeking dissolution; and (ii) to prevent frivolous or premature litigation, which may arise from transient disputes or impulsive decisions.However, it also observed that in rare and exceptional circumstances, the above prohibition may be relaxed since strict application thereof could lead to undue hardship to a spouse who has suffered grave cruelty or depravation even within a short span of marriage.It referred to a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Alka Saxena v. Sri Pankaj Saxena (2024) which held that the one-year bar provided under Section 14(1) of the HMA can be relaxed only when a specific and separate application is filed by a party seeking to dissolve the marriage on the ground of exceptional hardship or depravity. It also held that the Court may lift the bar by passing an appropriate order, keeping in mind the statutory safeguards.Thus, upon a combined reading of the statutory provision and the aforesaid decision, the Court held that the statutory bar is absolute unless a specific application for leave is filed and allowed, and in absence of such application, the divorce petition shall not be maintainable. It further held that though proviso to Section 14(1) permits relaxation of this bar in exceptional cases and even if the Court grants such leave, it still has the power to withhold the operation of the decree until after one year from the date of marriage, or dismiss the petition altogether if it finds that leave was obtained through any concealment or misrepresentation.In the case in hand, the Court observed, the statutory bar under Section 14(1) was squarely applicable as the divorce petition was filed before completion of even two months of marriage. More surprisingly, the appellant-husband did not file a separate application nor made a separate prayer for grant of leave to lift the bar. Still, the Family Court allowed both the parties to lead evidence and contest the case. Most strikingly, the respondent-wife also did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of such petition until the commencement of final arguments. The Family Court also did not frame any specific issue regarding the maintainability of the petition in the light of Section 14, HMA.Against such backdrop, the Division Bench was of the view that it would be...

S. 14 HMA | Separate Application Showing Exceptional Hardship/ Depravity Must Be Filed For Seeking Divorce Before 1 Year Of Marriage: Orissa HC

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

S. 14 HMA | Separate Application Showing Exceptional Hardship/ Depravity Must Be Filed For Seeking Divorce Before 1 Year Of Marriage: Orissa HC

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers