Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar set aside a Family Court order that had refused permission to entertain a mutual-consent divorce petition filed within one year of marriage and granted leave to the parties to present the joint petition forthwith, remanding the matter for expeditious consideration. The dispute arose after the spouses, who had registered their marriage soon after its solemnisation, never cohabited or consummated the marriage and continued to live separately, with one residing abroad and the other in India. The Delhi High Court has held that mere registration of marriage cannot determine matrimonial harmony or an intention to live together, since registration is only a statutory requirement and not a measure of marital viability.

The appeal arose from an order passed by the Family Court declining leave under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to present a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent before completion of one year from the date of marriage. Within seven months of marriage, the parties jointly decided to seek dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and filed a petition under Section 13-B (1) HMA along with an application under Section 14 HMA seeking leave to waive the statutory one-year bar. The Family Court rejected the application, holding that exceptional hardship was not established and observing that the parties had not made sufficient efforts to save the marriage. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court.

Also Read: S.175(4) BNSS | Magistrates To Seek Superior’s Report Before Ordering Probe Where Alleged Offence Arose During Public Servant’s Duties: Supreme Court

The Division Bench recorded that “it is an admitted position that the parties never cohabited even for a single day, the marriage was never consummated, and immediately after the marriage, both parties continued to reside separately.” It further noted that there were “no children from the wedlock, nor is there any reasonable probability of their living together in future.”

The Court observed that “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.” It held that such insistence would cause “avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute.”

With respect to the reasoning adopted by the Family Court, the Bench stated that “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.” The Court also recorded that “where the marriage has never been acted upon by the parties through cohabitation, the question of saving such a marriage does not meaningfully arise.”

Considering the statutory framework, the Court stated that it was required to examine “whether the present case discloses ‘exceptional hardship’ and whether there exists any reasonable probability of reconciliation between the parties.” Taking note of the undisputed facts that the parties had lived separately since inception, resided in different countries, and that there was no material indicating any possibility of resumption of matrimonial life, the Court recorded that “insisting upon adherence to the statutory period of one year would serve no meaningful purpose.” It concluded that “the present case squarely falls within the exception carved out under Section 14 of the HMA.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Pension Rule Letting A Childless Widow Continue Family Pension After Remarriage

The Court directed that “the Order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Family Court is set aside. The application under Section 14 HMA is allowed, and leave is granted to the parties to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (1) HMA forthwith without waiting for expiry of one year from the date of marriage. 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 appeal was accordingly “allowed in the above terms.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Wadhwa, Mr. Somyaa Gurung and Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhiraj Bhiduri, Advocate

Case Title: NG v DA
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:553-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 443 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Renu Bhatnagar