Orissa High Court: In a matrimonial appeal against Family Court’s decision, whereby the husband’s plea for grant of decree of divorce was rejected on the grounds of non-fulfillment of statutory period prescribed under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench of BR Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ. allowed the plea considering the prolonged separation of the parties and the advance stage of litigation. The Court condoned the statutory bar under Section 14 of the HMA.
Just within a month of the marriage, the couple started fighting with each other. The situation allegedly escalated when the Respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and did not return despite repeated requests by the husband and his family. All the efforts for reconciliation, including interventions by family elders and mediators, failed as the wife remained adamant about not resuming cohabitation. Subsequently, in 2020, the husband filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court. Since, this petition was filed within two months of the marriage, serious concerns were raised under Section 14 of the HMA, which mandated that no petition for divorce could be entertained within one year of marriage unless exceptional hardship or depravity is established.
Despite this statutory bar, the Family Court proceeded with the matter, and both parties adduced evidence and contested the case on its merits without raising the issue of maintainability. The Family Court found that the husband failed to establish sufficient grounds for cruelty or desertion under the HMA. The Court also found that the husband failed to make sincere efforts for reconciliation before seeking divorce.
The Court stated that Section 14 of HMA creates a statutory bar on the presentation of a divorce petition within one year of marriage, to ensures that matrimonial disputes are not brought prematurely before Courts, allowing spouses uses a reasonable opportunity to reconcile and prevent hasty dissolutions of marriage.
The Court added that in rare and exceptional circumstances, strict application of Section 14 could lead to undue hardship to a spouse who has genuinely suffered grave cruelty or deprivation within a short period of marriage.
Perusing Alka Saxena v. Pankaj Saxena1, the Court noted that the statutory bar is absolute unless a specific application for leave is filed and allowed. In cases where an application under the proviso is not made, the divorce petition itself is not maintainable. The Court also noted that the proviso to Section 14(1) permits a relaxation of this bar in exceptional cases where the petitioner can demonstrate either exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner, or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.
Further, the Court emphasised that 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. Further, even if permission is granted, the Court has the power to withhold the operation of the decree until after one year from the date of marriage, or dismiss the petition if it finds that leave was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment.
In the matter at hand, the Court noted that the marriage took place on 13-05-2020 and the divorce petition was filed on 7-07-2020, hence, the petition was presented within two months of the marriage, falling squarely within the statutory bar imposed by Section 14 of the HMA. The Court stated that the Family Court ought to have nibbed the proceedings in the bud.
Further, by the time the Family Court delivered the judgment, about three years had lapsed since the solemnisation of marriage. Hence, making an exception, the Court found it just and equitable to remand the case for fresh adjudication, rather than dismissing it purely on procedural grounds, particularly, given the peculiar circumstances of the case and the significant passage of time. The Court also noted that nearly five years had passed since the parties were residing separately.
Hence, the Court condoned the statutory limitation under Section 14 of the HMA and granted leave in favour of the husband. The Court directed the family Court to dispose of the matter within four months.
The Court clarified that the said stand should not be construed as a general precedent to entertain divorce petitions in violation of Section 14 of the HMA.
[Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra, MATA No. 370 of 2023, Decided on: 03-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: S.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv
For Respondent: Mr. H.S. Panda, Advocate
1. FIRST APPEAL No. – 239 of 2015
