A division bench of Kerala High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.
From Paras 8, 9 and 10
8. A reading of Section 14(1) of The Act, will show that, though the substantial provision provides a restriction in entertaining an application for dissolution of a marriage before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage, the proviso permits the court to grant leave to present the petition before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage, if the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. The proviso to the section creates two instances where the court can grant leave to excuse time limit i.e., exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity to the respondent.
9. It is common knowledge that none enters into a marriage for the purpose of dissolving it. Certainly, at the time when the marriage vow is taken or the knot is tied, the intention is to create a permanent bond. However, human nature being a complex one, the error in judgment could be realized instantly or belatedly. When that error in judgment is realized, instantly, as it has happened in the present case, a window is provided by law, through the proviso, against the bar under Section 14(1) of The Act, for persons like the petitioners, to shorten their mental trauma by seeking permission to waive the one year period, of course, on satisfying the conditions stipulated.
10. What is an exceptional hardship to the petitioner and what would be the exceptional depravity for the respondent, are matters which the court will have to identify, based on the factual situation that arise in each individual case. These two terms cannot be defined or explained in a straight-jacket formula, but will depend upon the circumstances of each case. Allegations that may be sufficient to grant a decree of divorce may not, in all cases, constitute the ‘exceptional hardship’ contemplated under the section. The factors that shall be weighed by the court while deciding a petition for grant of leave to present a petition for divorce are inter alia, reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties, interests of children in the marriage, as is indicated in Section 14(2) of The Act. With the above factors in mind, the terms exceptional hardship and exceptional depravity ought to be appreciated by the court by stepping into the shoes of the petitioner or the respondent, as the case may be. In our system of adversarial jurisprudence, when, parties who are discrepant in all aspects, are in accord that continuance of the relationship causes more hardship to them, in the absence of materials to the contrary, Court need not and cannot disbelieve their affirmations, especially at the initial stage of granting permission to present a petition for divorce. The power conferred under the latter part of the proviso to Section 14 of The Act is sufficient safeguard against misrepresentations or concealment in obtaining the above referred permissions.
From Paras 16 and 17,
16. A reading of the petition seeking permission in the instant case, as has been narrated earlier, shows that within few hours of the marriage, the petitioners separated from their companionship. It is jointly stated that neither had they lived together as husband and wife nor did they have any physical relationship. All attempts for mediation failed and their relationship has irretrievably broken down. The very fact that they have jointly stated that continuance of their relationship would cause more stress and trauma and that there is absolutely no trace of any stress or trauma in dissolving the marriage, speaks volumes about the exceptional hardship that will be caused to the parties to the marriage, if they are statutorily compelled to wait for a further period of time so as to merely satisfy the legal prescription of expiry of one year from the date of marriage. Both of them have also stated, together, that further delaying the dissolution of marriage has a propensity to cause damage to their career as well as their future prospects of marriage. They have also affirmed that their views are irreconcilable. When, in unison they state that continuance of marriage is more traumatic than dissolution of marriage, and that they lived together as husband and wife only for few hours, it satisfies the test of exceptional hardship contemplated under the proviso to Section 14(1) of The Act, to be granted the benefit of waiver of the period of one year.
17. A reading of the impugned order of the Family Court indicates that the court was moved more by general principles of morality rather than the specific case of the parties to the marriage. We cannot agree to the reasons stated in the impugned order.
Index of Divorce Matters here.
