Summary
The Allahabad High Court set aside a family court order that had denied an early divorce petition filed jointly under mutual consent. The Court held that the one-year waiting period under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be relaxed due to exceptional hardship and hostile matrimonial circumstances, allowing the couple to proceed with separation without further delay.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Marriage Timeline: Angad Soni and Arpita Yadav were married on 5 August 2024. A notarial deed followed on 12 August 2024, and they solemnized their marriage again on 3 September 2024.
- Breakdown of Relationship: Within days, disputes arose. The husband feared false allegations and wrote to the police. The wife subsequently filed FIRs against him under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and later, more serious charges including Sections 376 and 506 IPC and the POCSO Act.
- Legal Proceedings:
- Criminal writ was filed by the husband and arrest was stayed.
- On 26 March 2025, both parties filed for divorce under mutual consent (Section 13-B) with a request to waive the one-year bar under Section 14 of the Act.
- The Family Court rejected the waiver, holding that the mandatory one-year period from marriage had not lapsed.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case:
- Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce by mutual consent, requiring the couple to live separately for one year.
- Section 14, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Restriction on filing for divorce within one year of marriage, unless exceptional hardship or depravity is shown.
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Inherent powers of the Court to pass orders to meet the ends of justice.
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent:
- Appellant (Husband):
- Argued that ongoing criminal complaints and threats created an atmosphere of exceptional hardship.
- Pointed to multiple precedents where courts allowed early filing under Section 14 in cases of extreme circumstances and mutual agreement.
- Respondent (Wife):
- Supported the husband’s stand.
- Confirmed that both parties were in agreement to part ways immediately and avoid prolonged litigation.
Court’s Observation:
- The High Court took note of multiple mutual consent divorce cases from other High Courts, where the one-year period was relaxed under similar situations.
- Recognized that continuing the marriage would cause unnecessary mental and physical harassment to both parties.
- Held that this case involved exceptional hardship and depravity, especially given the criminal litigation and FIRs, and that forcing the parties to remain married served no purpose.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The Court set aside the Family Court’s order and allowed the application under Section 14.
- Directed the Family Court to treat the mutual consent petition as validly filed on 26 March 2025, enabling the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) to begin from that date.
- Appeal allowed, no order as to costs.
Comments from the author of this website
From my experience working with men in family courts, I’ve seen many situations where marriages break down almost immediately after the wedding, but the law still insists on a waiting period before the couple can even file for divorce. This can become especially painful when criminal cases are involved—often filed in retaliation or escalation—making cohabitation or even peaceful communication impossible.
In this case, the man had already faced serious allegations including rape and POCSO, within weeks of marriage. Even if unproven, such charges have a devastating impact on mental health, reputation, and personal safety. Still, under the usual rule, he would have had to wait a full year before even applying for divorce.
It’s reassuring that the Court recognized the gravity of the situation and acknowledged the futility of prolonging an already broken marriage. However, I often wonder—why must people endure prolonged legal and emotional strain when both sides agree they cannot continue?
There’s a need for a systemic rethink on mandatory waiting periods, especially when the marriage is short-lived, hostile, and irretrievably broken. When both parties are on the same page and the risk of false cases exists, courts should be more empowered to act swiftly, rather than waiting for arbitrary timelines.
Final Thoughts:
This judgment highlights a situation many couples—especially men—face when early marital breakdown is met with hostility, false complaints, and protracted litigation. While the law intends to protect the institution of marriage, it must also recognize when that institution has failed beyond repair.
The High Court’s approach reflects a deeper understanding of ground realities: that not every marriage deserves a one-year trial period, especially when continued interaction leads to psychological harm, reputational damage, or legal abuse.
Couples who mutually agree to separate peacefully should not be forced to wait in legal limbo, particularly when there is documented hardship or criminal conflict. More such pragmatic interpretations of Section 14 are necessary—not just for fairness, but to reduce emotional burnout and restore individual dignity.
This case reminds us: justice is not just about timelines—it’s about timely intervention.
Read Complete Judgement Here