Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh 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 16 and 17,

16. Applying the above stated legal position to the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The statement of the petitioners on oath that they are living separately since 3 days after the marriage, that the same was not consummated and that they had no mental stress in arriving at a conclusion to separate and on the contrary, continuing their relationship causes mental trauma and agony are the factors which weigh to exercise discretion in their favour for waiving the period of one year and the case on hand fall in the category of exceptional hardship as continuance of marriage would be more traumatic than dissolution of the same.
17. Further, the learned Trial Judge instead of examining the specific case of the petitioners herein with reference to the averments made in the affidavit in I.A.No.20 of 2022, based its Order on Savanam Giridhar Reddy‟s case referred to supra arising in a different fact situation and the reasoning in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel aptly applies to the instant case.

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Allahabad High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 19, 20 and 21,

19. Where there is a chance of reconciliation, however slight, the cooling period of six months from the date of filing of the divorce petition should be enforced. However, if there is no possibility of reconciliation, it would be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriage. Thus, if the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and have mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to move on with the life.
20. In the present case, the petitioner (husband) is aged about 34years and the opposite party (wife) is aged about 32 years. They got married on 29.06.2020 and are living separately since 28.10.2020. It is the case of the parties that every effort to resolve their difference failed despite best efforts being made by their family members and other persons of the society. It is further admitted that since both the parties failed to reconcile their dispute they agreed for divorce by mutual consent and entered into a settlement according to which the husband had to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the wife. In the application which was jointly made by both the parties for waiving of the cooling period, it was stated that the husband was in lookout for a job outside of State of Uttar Pradesh and because of pendency of this proceeding, he was not able to join his new job and further the wife also wanted to restart her life after the divorce. In this case marriage was a non starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for few months. After which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. It is jointly stated by the parties that the efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife.Even after over three years of separation, the parties still wants to go ahead with divorce. As the parties are living separately for more than three years soon after their marriage and they have entered into a compromise to settle their dispute amicably and has agreed for divorce, specially considering the age of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait except to prolong their agony rather it will be useful that both the parties may be given a chance to restart their life afresh after the divorce. It is also admitted, in the present case, that there are no issues out of the wedlock of the parties.
21. The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra is not consistent with the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (Supra) and Amit Kumar v.Suman Beniwal (Supra).

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 5,

5. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below erred in dismissing their application and failed to understand the hardship faced by the petitioners that is the personal health issues and impotency, which they had explicitly stated. Their petition under Section 14(1) of H.M. Act was dismissed mechanically, without appropriate examination of the content. They have also pleaded that the Court below dismissed their petition without considering their arguments and the precedents they cited, thus exceeding the scope of the matter.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner No.2 is forty (40) years old and who appeared personally through video conferencing submitted that she has received a marriage proposal which is at the final stage of settlement. However, things cannot materialise unless the divorce is obtained so far as the present marriage is concerned. She wishes to remarry due to biological complications that can occur with pregnancies at her age, such as a higher risk of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery.The delay in the divorce process is causing her a great deal of anxiety, as she is keenly aware that time is not on her side which is an immediate resolution to her request for divorce.

From Para 15,

15. In the present case the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 01.06.2023 and they commenced their matrimonial life together. However, their marital journey was short-lived as they continued their marital life for two (02) months. During this brief period, their relationship was beset by differences that arose primarily due to health problems and impotency. These issues created a barrier in their relationship and led to the consensual decision of dissolving their marital bond. The primary reason that necessitated the divorce is the couple’s incapacity to continue their marital relationship, which has been severely affected by health problems and impotency. Both parties are unequivocally in agreement about their decision to divorce, and there seems to be no possibility of reconciliation. Their mutual consent for divorce underscores the irreparable breakdown of their marriage. Further adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that the petitioner No.2, who is forty (40) years old, has received marriage proposals and is keen on remarrying. Her decision is fuelled by the potential biological complications associated with pregnancies at her age. She is acutely aware of the higher risks of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery that can occur with pregnancies at her age. Therefore, she wishes to remarry as soon as possible to mitigate these risks at the earliest. Since they have already completed their ten (10) months waiting period and just about two (02) months time is left to complete the waiting period. Hence, they already waited for the substantial part of the statutory waiting period.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Posted on April 28, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court (at Dharwad) held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 6 (Issue Framed)

6. From above, only question that would arise for consideration is ‘whether petitioners have made out a case of exceptional hardship and whether trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.no.I?’

From Paras 7 and 8 (Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship)

7. Perusal of petition at Annexure-A would indicate that there are specific pleading about petitioner no.2 being forged into marriage and due to same, she had withdrawn from marital obligations. They have also stated that marriage having not been consummated and parties being residing separately and failure of efforts for reconciliation by family members and elders. It is also seen that parties have intended to move on with their lives after obtaining divorce.
8. While passing impugned order, only reason assigned by trial Court is that there are no averments to make out a case of exceptional hardship, which does not appear to be justified in view of above observations.

From Para 9 (Enquire the parties about Exceptional Hardship or lack of it)

9. On other hand, it would have been appropriate for learned trial Judge to have devoted some effort to enquire about existence or otherwise of exceptional hardship as provided in Section 14 of Act. Without such exercise, arrival of conclusion as above would not be justified.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Archana Sharma Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 22 September, 2014

Posted on January 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another thieving knife bites the dust. No alimony for the knife due to the conduct of the knife. Hon’ble Allahabad HC delivered this judgment.

From the perusal of the impugned judgment, we also find that after the examination-in-chief of the respondent, no cross-examination was done for a period of three years and as such having no other alternative, the Court closed the opportunity of cross-examination.

And then,

A perusal of the record further indicates that the appellant also moved an application for summoning the witnesses, which was rejected by the learned court below on 28.05.2004. This order was never challenged by the appellant and as such the same attained finality. An application for amendment of the written statement was also moved by the appellant, which was also rejected on 16.01.2004 and this order also became final as the same was not assailed before any Court. In view of above facts that the appellant did not cross-examine the respondent and also did not produce any evidence, the evidence adduced by the respondent stood un-rebutted. The learned court below has relied upon the evidence of the respondent on the ground that the appellant did not rebut the evidence of the respondent either by cross-examination or by adducing any other evidence. However, the law is that even if the evidence of the respondent remains un-rebutted and the appellant does not produce any evidence in defence, it is the duty of the Court to examine the evidence on record and come to a conclusion as to whether the cruelty as alleged by the respondent has been proved and such cruelty is to such an extent that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by means of a decree of divorce.

Filing false FIR,

The appellant also lodged a false FIR against the respondent and other members of his family with false allegations of demand of dowry etc. upon which the police conducted the investigation and finally submitted final report. This fact is not disputed by the appellant. However, the appellant filed objection against the submission of the final report of the police upon which the Magistrate summoned the respondent and he had to seek bail from the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate after the trial acquitted the respondent and other members of his family, who were falsely implicated in the said case but they had to undergo mental stress for several years before the court.

Alleged alimony demand for divorce,

The learned court below also tried to amicably settle the dispute by calling upon them before the court but the appellant did not agree without being paid a handsome amount by the respondent. The appellant also moved an application for payment of Rs.70,000/- as alimony and it was clearly mentioned in the said application that she would accept the divorce only in case the aforesaid amount is paid to her. This prima-facie indicates that the appellant instead of making any efforts towards amicable settlement always insisted for the alimony.

Here is another para,

Whenever an effort was made for reconciliation, the appellant demanded a handsome amount to settle the matter. Thus, the conduct of the appellant was such that the learned court below did not find it proper to award any permanent alimony. The learned court below on the basis of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the appellant was getting only Rs.3,875/- per month after deduction. The appellant on the other hand was getting salary of Rs.5,631/- per month from Sahara India Office. The learned court below has also found that as required by the Rules, the appellant did not submit any details of her income and keeping in view the income of the appellant as well as that of respondent and also taking into account the conduct of the appellant, she was not entitled for any permanent alimony.

Archana Sharma Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 22 September, 2014

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9174631/

Citation:

Divorce Judgments

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the listing of divorce grant judgments on various grounds as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

NOTE: This will be a running document, meaning, it will be frequently updated with judgments as and when I find them.

Supreme Court Judgments

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956 [Definition of Desertion]
Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326
Sureshta Devi Vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991 [MCD set-aside as consent was obtained fraudulently]
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [contours of “mental cruelty” defined such that parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together]
Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002 [Cruelty defined; Recommended a Time limit of 90 days to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA resulting in amendment: Act 50 of 2003 The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 on 2003-10-23, whereby Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only]
Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003 [Divorce set-aside for Mental Cruelty and character assassination of husband reasons]
Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 [deprived of each other’s company and denial of conjugal relationship by the other spouse, with no effort by the respondent/wife to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty]
Pankaj Mahajan vs Dimple @ Kajal on 30 September, 2011 [constantly giving threats of suicide is cruelty]
Vishwanath Vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012
U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013
Vidhya Viswanathan vs Kartik Balakrishnan on 22 September, 2014
K. Srinivas Vs K. Sunita on 19 November, 2014 [filing of the false complaint against the husband and his family members ‘regarding unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand’ also constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act]
Narendra Vs K.Meena on 6 October, 2016 [Separating husband from Parents is ground]
Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 [Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases; The statutory period (of 6 months – 18 months) contemplated under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is directory and that it is open to the Court to exercise discretion]
Harjinder Singh Vs Rajpal on 17 January, 2018 [MCD with 22 lakhs settlement]
Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs Rani Suneela Rani on 19 November, 2019 [Filing false cases solid ground for Divorce on the ground of Cruelty]
Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020 []
Amit Kumar Vs Suman Beniwal on 11 Dec 2021 [Further Guidelines to waive off cooling period of 6 months in MCD cases]
N.Rajendran Vs S.Valli on 03 Feb 2022 [Dead Marriage dissolved under power of Article 142 of the Constitution]
Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 [Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages]
Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted in DVC; Marriage terminated under Article 142; Alimony of 2 Crore granted]
Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: Landmark Judgment on Dead Marriages, since the couple lived together only for 80 days and have lived separately since, multiple litigations against each other and no child, the marriage is dead; Rs.25 Lakhs alimony granted]

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship]

Allahabad High Court

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship]

Bombay High Court

Sneha Akshay Garg and Anr Vs Nil on 25 Jul 2024 [Waiting of cooling off period; if conditions in Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur on 12 Sep 2017 are met]

Calcutta High Court

Subhash Chandra Das Chowdhury Vs Sandhya Das Chowdhury on 18 July 2008

Delhi High Court

Jiten Bhalla Vs Gaytri Bajaj on 08 Sep 2008 [MCD obtained; 3 years later disputed]
Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha on 28 Ferbuary, 2019 [Divorce set-aside]
Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023 [Long continuous separation; false allegations;Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023 [Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
Pallavi Mohan Vs Raghu Menon on 12 Sep 2023 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments of FC is increased from 30 days to 90 days, passed under HMA and SMA only. For any other cases like Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the time limit is 30 days only because Parliament did not amend the FC Act yet!]
Deepti Vs Anil Kumar on 19 Sep 2023 [Family Courts cannot grant divorce on ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage]
Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024 [Cruelty not established but desertion is implicitly established]
Payal Sethi Vs Rohit Sethi on 09 Jan 2024 [repeated threats to commit suicide and the attempt to commit suicide was held to be an action amounting to cruelty; relies on decisions of Apex Court in Mangayarkarasi, K Srinivas, Pankaj Mahajan]
Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024 [Unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant]
Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar on 28 Feb 2024 [Alleging false adultery and igniting animosity in children towards father is cruelty, valid ground for divorce]
Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024 [False and baseless allegation cause mental cruelty]
Shivi Bansal Vs Gaurav Bansal on 16 Jul 2024 [Impleadment of Paramour is not necessary to decide divorce petition on adultery ground]

Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Prerna on 16 Dec 2020 [Time limit to file appeal against judgments in cases under HMA, SMA is 90 days but not 30 days as prescribed under FC Act]

Karnataka High Court

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023 (MCD after settlement)
Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship]
H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024 (Stay of divorce proceedings until arrears of interim maintenance is paid)

Kerala High Court

Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship]
Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025 [Husband Doesn’t Show Interest In Sex, Prefers Only Spiritual Pursuits]

Madras High Court

R.Natarajan Vs. Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011
V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 [Unestablished allegations of sexual harassment is cruelty]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017 (Also Desertion ground)
Aarti Vs Kishan Meena on 22 Aug 2024 (Cruelty and Desertion grounds)

Patna High Court

Rekha Devi Vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018
Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 [No evidence for mental disorder (schizophrenia) so divorce denied]

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012 (MCD with 1.25 lakhs settlement)
Pratham Singh vs Rajesh on 3 December, 2014 (Also Desertion ground)
Jagbir Singh vs Nisha on 11 March, 2015

Telangana High Court

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024 [MCD within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship]
Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 [Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage, impleadment of a co-respondent, Desertion and status of previous marriage]

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act Sec 14 – No Petition For Divorce Within One Year

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Vishnudas H. and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Jul 2020

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Archana Sharma Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 22 September, 2014