Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh held that the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies to the present case and directed that the application for leave to present a mutual consent divorce petition before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage be allowed. The Court set aside the Family Court’s earlier rejection and ordered that the divorce petition be treated as validly filed. The Family Court has now been directed to proceed under Section 13-B(2) of the Act.

The present matter arose from a matrimonial dispute following a marriage solemnized on 5 August 2024 under Hindu rites and rituals, with a notarial marriage deed executed on 12 August 2024. A second ceremonial marriage occurred on 3 September 2024. Hostilities soon emerged between the parties. On 10 September 2024, the appellant submitted a complaint via the IGRS Portal to the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar, alleging threats from the respondent.

Also Read: NEET-PG 2025 Postponed: Supreme Court Directs Single-Shift Exam to Ensure Fairness and Transparency

On 11 September 2024, the respondent filed FIR No.96 of 2024 at Mahila Thana, Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A subsequent application for compromise was filed by the respondent on 24 September 2024, expressing her wish to withdraw the FIR.

However, marital discord persisted, leading to another FIR (No.261 of 2024) filed on 29 November 2024 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Hanswar Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar.

Following this, the appellant moved the High Court under a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking to quash the FIR. On 12 December 2024, the High Court stayed the appellant’s arrest and referred the matter to mediation. A monetary direction of ₹50,000 payable to the respondent was also issued.

In parallel, Criminal Case No.28 of 2024, emanating from FIR No.96 of 2024, was initiated by summoning the appellant’s family members through a 6 December 2024 order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar.

Due to continued hostility, the couple jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B and an application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking leave to initiate mutual divorce proceedings prior to the statutory one-year period. The Family Court dismissed the Section 14 application on 27 March 2025, concluding that the cause of action under Section 13-B arises only after one year of separate living, and the statutory waiting period could not be waived.

In the appeal, the appellant’s counsel argued that Section 13-B is explicitly subject to the provisions of the Act and can be read in conjunction with the exceptions granted under Section 14. Citing precedent from various High Courts including Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, and Punjab & Haryana, the counsel submitted that where parties mutually agree and are undergoing exceptional hardship, leave under Section 14 can be granted even before one year has elapsed.

The respondent’s counsel supported the appellant’s submissions and consented to relaxation of the statutory period to expedite the divorce process.

The High Court noted that criminal proceedings initiated between the parties indicated a lack of any probable reconciliation and that both parties desired to part ways amicably and permanently. The Court found the case to reflect the type of exceptional hardship envisaged under Section 14(1) and agreed to entertain the pre-one-year divorce petition.

The Court, after examining the legal framework and the facts presented, found that the bar under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which ordinarily prohibits filing for divorce within one year of marriage, is subject to an exception provided under its proviso. This exception allows the Court to entertain such a petition if it is satisfied that the case involves either exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.

In assessing the present case, the Bench considered the existence of multiple criminal complaints between the parties and the complete breakdown of marital relations. The material on record, including the FIRs and continued disputes, led the Court to conclude that there was no possibility of reconciliation. Both parties had voluntarily filed for divorce and appeared resolute in their decision to end the marriage.

The Court stated that when there is clear and mutual intent to dissolve the marriage and circumstances suggest continued litigation would serve no purpose but to cause further emotional and physical distress, the statutory waiting period can be relaxed. The facts, according to the Bench, aligned with situations recognized by other High Courts where such hardship or depravity justified early intervention.

Thus, the Court determined that the case met the threshold of “exceptional hardship,” and permitting the divorce petition to proceed without waiting for the completion of one year from the date of marriage was legally sustainable.

The High Court, upon allowing the appeal, set aside the order dated 27 March 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, in Miscellaneous Application No.24 of 2025.

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Magistrate’s Power | Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CrPC Permissible Even After Cognizance Is Taken

 It proceeded to allow the application filed by the appellant under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 26 March 2025.

The Court directed the Family Court to treat the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as having been filed on 26 March 2025.

Consequently, the Family Court was instructed to proceed under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, thereby permitting the parties to move for a decree of divorce after the statutory period of six months from that date. The Court made no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Maria Fatima, Advocate; Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate; Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate; Shhreiya Agarawal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Prateek Yadav, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. YYY

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:32543-DB

Case Number: First Appeal Defective No.115 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Brij Raj Singh

[Read/Download order]