The Delhi High Court held that where there was no cohabitation, no consummation, and no reasonable chance of reconciliation, marriage registration alone cannot justify prolonging a dead marriage. As the spouses lived separately in different countries with no children, the Court waived the one-year separation period and allowed immediate mutual consent divorce.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, speaking through Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, delivered a strongly reasoned and socially grounded decision and allowed early divorce holding that a marriage which was never lived in reality cannot be artificially prolonged merely to satisfy a statutory waiting period.
The Court underlined that law must operate in tune with real human situations and should not mechanically compel individuals to remain bound to a relationship that has no substance, purpose, or practical existence.
The case involved a couple whose marriage was solemnised and registered, but the parties admittedly never cohabited even for a single day. The marriage was never consummated and both spouses continued to live separately at their respective parental homes from the very beginning.
Soon after the marriage, serious incompatibility and irreconcilable differences surfaced, leading both parties to mutually agree that the marriage should be dissolved.
Since the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed within seven months of marriage, an application was also moved seeking permission to waive the one-year waiting period prescribed under law. The Family Court rejected this request, stating that there was no exceptional hardship and that the parties had not made sufficient efforts to save the marriage.
Before the High Court, it was pointed out that the husband was residing in Canada while the wife was living in India and taking care of her aged parents. Neither of them was willing or practically able to relocate. Because of this, there was no realistic possibility of the parties resuming matrimonial life.
While examining the legal position, the High Court referred to Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows mutual consent divorce only after parties have lived separately for one year and mutually agree to dissolve the marriage. The Court also examined Section 14 of the Act, which generally bars divorce petitions within one year of marriage but permits relaxation in cases of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, keeping in mind the possibility of reconciliation and the welfare of children.
The Court relied on the legal principles already settled by a Full Bench, which clarified that the one-year separation period can be waived in deserving cases and that such waiver is not automatic but depends on proof of genuine hardship.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the admitted facts struck at the very foundation of a subsisting matrimonial relationship. The marriage had never been acted upon, there was no cohabitation, no consummation, no children, and no reasonable chance of reconciliation. The spouses were living in different countries and personal circumstances made relocation impossible for either side.
The Bench clearly observed that:
“Insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation, thereby causing avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute.”
The Court also rejected the reasoning that registration of marriage weakened the claim of hardship and clarified that:
“Registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship.”
On the question of alleged lack of effort to save the marriage, the Court held that:
“Where the marriage has never been acted upon by the parties through cohabitation, the question of saving such a marriage does not meaningfully arise.”
Taking into account the fact that the marriage was never consummated, the parties had lived separately since inception, they were residing in different countries, and there was no possibility of resumption of matrimonial life, the Court concluded that forcing the parties to wait would serve no meaningful purpose.
The Bench observed that:
“Insisting upon adherence to the statutory period of one year would serve no meaningful purpose. On the contrary, it would only result in prolonging a marriage that exists merely in law and not in substance, thereby causing exceptional hardship within the meaning of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the HMA.”
Accordingly, the Family Court’s order was set aside, permission was granted to immediately file the mutual consent divorce petition, and the matter was remanded for expeditious disposal.
This judgment reinforces a crucial principle in matrimonial law, when a marriage has failed at inception and has no real future, procedural timelines cannot be used to prolong emotional, legal, and practical suffering.
Explanatory Table — Laws & Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13-B(1) | Mutual consent divorce after one year separation. | Couple filed mutual divorce within seven months, requiring waiver of waiting period. |
| Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13-B(2) | Cooling-off period before final divorce. | Court noted cooling-off period can be waived separately in deserving cases. |
| Hindu Marriage Act – Section 14(1) | Bars divorce within one year unless hardship exists. | High Court found exceptional hardship and allowed early filing. |
| Hindu Marriage Act – Section 14(2) | Court must assess reconciliation and children’s welfare. | No children and no chance of reconciliation due to separate living. |
| Family Courts Act – Section 19 | Appeal against Family Court orders. | Appeal filed against rejection of waiver by Family Court. |
| Hindu Marriage Act – Section 28 | Governs appeal procedure. | Applied along with Section 19 for maintainability of appeal. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Nupur Garg v. Dwarkesh Ahuja
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary & Justice Renu Bhatnagar
- Date of Decision: 20 January 2026
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Wadhwa, Mr. Somyaa Gurung, and Mr. Saurabh Yadav
- For Respondent: Mr. Dhiraj Bhiduri
- Originating Court: Family Court-02, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi
- Impugned Order Date: 09 December 2025
Key Takeaways
- Law should not force any person, to remain stuck in a marriage that never existed in real life, where there was no cohabitation, no emotional bond, and no future.
- Mechanical waiting periods should not override common sense, dignity, and mental peace when both parties mutually agree that the marriage has failed at inception.
- Courts must balance legal safeguards with human reality, ensuring that justice protects individuals from unnecessary legal and emotional burden rather than prolonging conflict.
- Registration of marriage or formal paperwork cannot be treated as proof of a workable relationship when the marriage was never actually lived or acted upon.
- A fair legal system must allow timely closure so that both parties can rebuild their lives responsibly instead of remaining trapped in dead relationships created only on paper.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.