Case at a Glance
A couple married on 15 November 2025 separated on 20 November 2025, the very day they reached the matrimonial home, after an altercation between the families; the husband left for Canada a week later. They jointly asked the Family Court to waive the one-year bar on presenting a divorce petition under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but it refused, saying no exceptional hardship or depravity was shown. The Telangana High Court allowed their revision, holding that the condition could be “suitably relaxed” since they never lived together, reconciliation was impossible and both are young and wish to remarry. The waiver was granted and the case sent back to the Family Court.
The parties married on 15 November 2025, after which the wife went to her parents’ home. The marriage was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Saroornagar, on 20 November 2025. The same day the couple arrived at the matrimonial home, an altercation broke out involving both families, and the wife left with her parents that evening. The husband left for Canada on 28 November 2025. It was undisputed that they had not cohabited for even a single day after 20 November 2025.
On 14 February 2026 the couple jointly filed an application under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking leave to present a divorce petition before one year of marriage. By order dated 9 April 2026, the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dismissed the application, reasoning that one year had not elapsed, that no exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity of the respondent had been shown, and that no reasons had been given for invoking the proviso. The couple filed a civil revision petition in the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the one-year bar on presenting a divorce petition under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act be waived for a young couple who separated within days of marriage and never lived together?
Exceptional Hardship Read in Light of the Parties’ Real Situation
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted that the proviso to Section 14(1) permits a petition within one year only on grounds of “exceptional hardship” to the petitioner or “exceptional depravity” on the part of the respondent. The petitioners relied on a coordinate bench order in CRP No. 517 of 2024 (22 March 2024), which had granted a waiver in nearly identical facts. That order in turn relied on Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions in Ramnik Kaur v. Harvinder Pal Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 4608, where one spouse had left for Canada and the court considered the parties’ youth, and Shivani Yadav v. Amit Yadav, FAO No. 658 of 2021 (6 August 2021), where a two-day stay together was held sufficient for waiver.
The court found that the parties had not lived together for a single day and that there was no possibility of reconciliation. Their affidavit spoke of “irresolvable differences” between them and their families, and both are young and intend to marry other persons. Considering their overall interest, the absence of cohabitation and the lack of any chance of reconciliation, the court held that the requirement of exceptional hardship or depravity could be suitably relaxed in the circumstances.
What the Court Actually Held
- The proviso to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act allows waiver of the one-year bar on exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity.
- Where a young couple never cohabited after separating within days of marriage and reconciliation is impossible, the condition can be suitably relaxed.
- The Family Court’s order of 9 April 2026 was set aside and I.A. No. 320 of 2026 was allowed, waiving the one-year bar.
- The matter was remanded to the Family Court to pass an appropriate judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Couples whose marriages break down almost immediately are otherwise forced to wait a full year before they can even file for divorce.
- It shows High Courts reading ‘exceptional hardship’ with regard to the parties’ youth, plans to remarry and absence of cohabitation.
- It builds on a consistent line of Telangana and Punjab and Haryana decisions on early mutual divorce.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Couples
- A joint application stating clearly that you never lived together and cannot reconcile helps the court relax the one-year bar.
- Explain the hardship of waiting, such as the wish to remarry; the Family Court here faulted the absence of reasons.
For Counsel
- Plead specific facts of hardship in the Section 14 application and affidavit, not just the request for waiver.
- Cite CRP No. 517 of 2024 and this order, along with Ramnik Kaur and Shivani Yadav, where facts are similar.
Key Takeaways
- The one-year bar under Section 14 is not absolute.
- No cohabitation and no chance of reconciliation weigh heavily.
- Youth and intention to remarry are relevant to hardship.
- Family Courts must give reasons; the High Court can correct a refusal in revision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we file for mutual divorce within one year of marriage?
Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act ordinarily bars it, but its proviso allows a court to permit filing earlier in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity. Here the High Court allowed it because the couple never lived together and could not reconcile.
Was the divorce granted by the High Court?
No. The High Court only waived the one-year bar and sent the matter back to the Family Court to pass an appropriate judgment on the divorce petition.
Which earlier cases did the court rely on?
A Telangana High Court order in CRP No. 517 of 2024, which in turn relied on Ramnik Kaur v. Harvinder Pal Singh and Shivani Yadav v. Amit Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Conclusion
The order takes a practical view of Section 14: where a marriage ended almost as soon as it began and both parties want to move on, making them wait a year serves no purpose. The court relaxed the bar and returned the case for decision on the divorce itself.
Practical takeaway: When seeking leave to file for divorce within a year, set out concrete facts of hardship — no cohabitation, no chance of reconciliation and plans to remarry — in the application and supporting affidavit.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com