Angad Soni vs Arpita Yadav (Allahabad High Court) (2025:AHC-LKO:32543-DB)
| COURT: | Allahabad High Court |
| JUDGES: | Brij Raj Singh J., Vivek Chaudhary J. |
| LEGISLATION(S): | Hindu Marriage Act |
| COUNSEL: | Gaurav Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Nadeem Murtaza, Shhreiya Agarawal |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| If the Court is satisfied that the parties have mutually agreed for dissolution of their marriage, then they should be allowed to present a divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prior to lapse of period of one year. | |
(i) The proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is an exception to the necessity for expiration of a period of one year since the date of marriage to enable a party to file a petition for divorce. Once an application under Section 14 (1) of the Act, 1955 is filed before the court, certainly the court has to see whether there is exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.
(ii) In the present case, it is borne out of the record that criminal cases have been filed by the respondent and there is no chance that marriage will subsist. Therefore, the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, 1955 is to be invoked, so that the parties may get divorce and lead their peaceful life. Both the parties have mutually filed the divorce petition along with an application under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1955, therefore, the said application is ought to be allowed.
(iii) When both the parties are voluntarily inclined to withdraw relationship and do not want to continue with the relationship at all and they also want to enjoy their life by parting their ways, therefore, the application filed under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed treating the case is one of exceptional hardship to the appellant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent as continuance of the litigation will cause mental and physical harassment to them unnecessarily.
1. FAO No.756 of 2003, Pooja Gupta and another Vs. NIL, decided on 11.02.2003 (Delhi High Court);
2. Sweety E.M. Vs. Sural Kumar K.B., AIR 2008 Kar 1;
3. Ujwal Shetty Vs. Nil, 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 371;
4. Gijoosh Gopi Vs. Shruti S, 2012 SCC OnLine Ker 31780; and
5. FAO No.658 of 2021, Shivani Yadav Vs. Amit Yadav, decided on
06.08.2021 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).