S.14 HMA | Divorce Petition Within 1 Year Of Marriage Barred, Can Only Be Entertained In Case Of Exceptional Hardship: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bars presentation of a petition for divorce cannot be filed within a period of 1 year from the date of marriage and can only be entertained in case of exceptional hardship caused to the spouse.

It was held that an application under Section 14 must be filed by the spouse seeking divorce within a year of marriage and the same must be allowed with reasons for entertaining divorce within 12 months of marriage.

Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that divorce petition cannot be filed within one year of marriage and the same should not be entertained within a year of date of marriage of the parties unless there are exceptional hardship caused by exception depravity on part of the other spouse. It provides that if any decree is passed by the Court, the same shall not take effect before the expiry of 1 year from the date of marriage.

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

“the presentation of the petition within one year is not permitted under the Act by way of general law. In fact on a wholesome reading of the provision it reveals that cause of action to dissolve a Hindu marriage may not arise to a party thereto, within the first year of marriage, except in cases involving 'extreme hardship' or 'extreme depravity' suffered by the petitioner. Barring those two contingencies, no other exists. Even then, that cause of action is not available on its own. Its existence has to be claimed by the petitioner, by filing a specific application to the Competent Court and it has to be first established before that Court. Only upon that plea being accepted, such a petition may be entertained.”

Case Background

Parties were married on 15.01.1999. Respondent-husband filed the divorce petition within 11 months of marriage. Meanwhile, the appellant-wife filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed in her favour. Respondent-husband did not file any appeal against the decree of restitution.

In 2013, the husband filed an amendment application including another ground for divorce. Husband pleaded that the there was no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of one year after the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, he was entitled to a decree of divorce.

Before the Trial Court, the appellant-wife pleaded that the divorce case was instituted by the husband only to extract higher dowry from her, as it was filed within 1 year of marriage. Counsel for appellant pleaded that the Trial Court, while granting divorce, did not take into account the objections raised by her. It was argued that the divorce petition should not have been entertained by the Court as it was filed within one year of the marriage.

It was further argued that the only issue framed by the Trial Court was regarding cruelty which was not established by the respondent-husband. It was argued that wife fighting the divorce case, tooth and nail, cannot be treated as cruelty.

Per contra, counsel for respondent-husband pleaded that the divorce case filed after 1 year of marriage. It was submitted that the parties had lived separately for 24 years and restitution of conjugal rights was not possible as the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that Section 14 of the Act overrides all other provisions. It was held that there is a specific bar on filing the divorce petition within a year from the date of marriage.

The Court held that the respondent-husband had not filed any such application to show exception hardship cause by the wife for filing divorce petition within 1 year of marriage. It was held that an application under Section 14 ought to be filed showing exceptional circumstances which must be dealt with by the Court before dealing with divorce petition filed within a year of marriage.

The Court held that the argument of the respondent that the petition was decided after a period of 1 year from the date of marriage was not sustainable as no cause of action arose at the time of presentation of the divorce case.

“If that petition could not be filed, because no cause of action arose, the petition may not become competent by passage of time as cause of action may only be seen to arise with reference to the date of presentation of a petition, and not later.”

Regarding the allegation of cruelty by the husband, the Court held that

“How parties to a marriage may conduct themselves in the privacy of their relationship that must be maintained within the boundaries of the intensely personal relationship between two individuals, is not for the Courts to rule upon. What personal likes, preferences and habits, acts a party to a marriage may feel inclined to practice and indulge in and desire their partner to participate in, within the confines of that relationship that too involving intimate moments is not for the Court to explore or examine unless they involve acts of ex facie extreme cruelty and/ or depravity.”

The Court held that different preferences regarding intimate moments between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the Court and should be left to the judgment of the parties. Further, the Court held that the irretrievable break down of marriage is not a statutory ground for granting divorce.

Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court was set aside with a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the appellant.

Case Title: Smt. Alka Saxena v. Sri Pankaj Saxena [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2015]

Click Here To Read/Download Order