High Court of Orissa
Case Details
Corrected IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK MATA No. 370 of 2023 Debabrata Debada ebadarsan Palei -versus- Subhakanti Patra atra & Another Advocate(s) appear appeared in this case:- …. …. Appellant Respondents For Appellant : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv Sr. Advocate ndent For Respondent : Mr. H.S. Panda, Advoca dvocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY CORA JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH JUDGMENT 3rd April, 2025 By The Bench. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Heard 2. Present Appeal is directed against the impug Presen dated 26th Se September, 2023 of learned Judge, F impugned judgment ge, Family Court, Bhadrak, whe , wherein the prayer of the husband to gr to grant decree of divorce has b has been rejected on the ground of non non-fulfillment of statutory peri period prescribed under Section 14 o 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act e Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA “HMA”). 3.
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that The ba e that the marriage between the the Appellant-husband and the Respond spondent-wife was solemnised on sed on May 13, 2020, following Hindu rites
Legal Reasoning
u rites and customs. MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 1 of 9 The marriage rriage was arranged by their families, a lies, and after the solemnisation, sation, the couple began their matrimonia imonial life at the husband’s res s residence. However, within a short sp hort span of time, marital discor discord arose between the parties, leadin leading to serious disputes and a and allegations from both sides. The situat situation allegedly deteriorated fu ated further when, on June 24, 2020, just o , just over a month after the mar e marriage, the Respondent-wife left the ft the matrimonial home and di d did not return despite repeated requ d requests by the Appellant and and his family. The Appellant claims that s that all efforts for reconciliation, iation, including interventions by family family elders and mediators, fail rs, failed as the Respondent remained adam adamant about not resuming coh g cohabitation. Subsequently, on July 7 July 7, 2020, the Appellant file filed a petition for divorce before the F the Family Court, Bhadrak, invo , invoking grounds under the HMA. H . However, this petition was f was filed within two months of the mar e marriage, raising concerns unde s under Section 14 of the HMA, which man h mandates that no petition for d for divorce can be entertained within ithin one year of marriage unles e unless exceptional hardship or depravity i avity is established. Despite this s this statutory bar, the Family Court procee proceeded with the matter, and bo and both parties adduced evidence and conte contested the case on its merits w erits without raising the issue of maintainabil ainability. 4. The The learned Judge, Family Court, Bh l , Bhadrak, after examining the ng the pleadings, evidence, and arguments ments presented by both parties, rties, dismissed the Appellant-husband’ ’s petition for divorce. The The Family Court found that the Appell Appellant failed to establish suffi sufficient grounds for cruelty or desertio esertion under the HMA. The C Court also found that the Appellant failed to make MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 2 of 9 sincere effort efforts for reconciliation before seeking eking divorce, and instead, hastil hastily approached the Court within tw in two months of marriage, whi e, which was in clear contravention of Sect f Section 14 of the HMA, barring arring divorce petitions within the first yea st year of marriage unless excep exceptional hardship is demonstrated. ated. Despite this statutory bar , the Family Court proceeded with the c h the case on merits but ultimately mately concluded that the Appellant did no did not establish a valid ground f ound for divorce, leading to the dismissal of t sal of the petition. 5. The limited issue before this Court pe The l pertains to the procedural lap ral lapse under Section 14 of the HMA. Mr. A. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Senior Counsel for the Appellant, has subm s submitted that the matter should should be remanded to the Family Cou Court for fresh adjudication, c tion, considering the procedural defect and ct and the lapse of substantial tim ial time. 6. Section 14 of HMA creates a statutory Section tutory bar on the presentation o tion of a divorce petition within one year e year of marriage. This provision vision ensures that matrimonial disputes ar tes are not brought prematurely rely before Courts, allowing spouses a uses a reasonable opportunity t nity to reconcile and prevent hasty dis ty dissolutions of marriage. The e. The section reads as – No petition for divorce to be presented within ithin one year 14. No pe of marriag arriage.— (1) Notwi not be com dissolutio the date o elapsed] s Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ac be competent for any Court to entertain any p olution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, [ date of the presentation of the petition one sed] since the date of the marriage: is Act, it shall ny petition for orce, [unless at one year has Provided accordanc vided that the Court may, upon application mad ordance with such rules as may be made by t n made to it in e by the High MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 3 of 9 Court in th one year h ground th petitioner Responde the petitio petition b nature of do so subj effect unt the marria to any pe the said o facts as dismissed in that behalf, allow a petition to be presented year has elapsed] since the date of the marriag und that the case is one of exceptional hardsh tioner or of exceptional depravity on the par pondent, but if it appears to the Court at the he petition that the petitioner obtained leave to pr tion by any misrepresentation or concealmen re of the case, the Court may, if it pronounces so subject to the condition that the decree shall ct until after the [expiry of one year] from the marriage or may dismiss the petition without p ny petition which may be brought after [expi said one year] upon the same or substantially t s as those alleged in support of the pet issed. esented [before arriage on the hardship to the e part of the the hearing of to present the alment of the unces a decree, shall not have om the date of thout prejudice [expiration of tially the same e petition so (2) In dis leave to p of one ye have rega and probabilit the expira In disposing of any application under this se e to present a petition for divorce before the [ex ne year] from the date of the marriage, the Co e regard to the interests of any children of the is a re bability of a reconciliation between the partie expiration of the [said one year]. his section for the [expiration Court shall f the marriage a reasonable parties before the question whether there to to However, in rare and exceptional circums Howev ircumstances, strict application of ion of Section 14 could lead to undue h due hardship to a spouse who h who has genuinely suffered grave cruelty o elty or deprivation within a short short period of marriage. 7. The interpretation of Section 14 of HMA i The MA is extensively analysed in th in the recent decision of Hon’ble Allahaba lahabad High Court in the matter o atter of Smt. Alka Saxena Vs. Sri Pankaj S T APPEAL No. - 239 of 20151 on 24th Octo in FIRST APP aj Saxena passed October, 2024– 13. Clea of a peti the bar a year of a a Hindu . Clearly, the bar thus created is not on the ente a petition within one year of the Hindu marriag e bar arises on the presentation of a petition w ar of a marriage. Therefore, the statute prevents Hindu marriage to ‘present’ any petition to diss he entertainment arriage. Rather, ition within one events a party to to dissolve their 1 Neutral Citation No. - 20 2024:AHC:170550-DB MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 4 of 9 if in one year from upshot of the gainst the cause riage within one arriage before any competent Court, within one marriage e solemnization of their marriage. The upsh the sole ove discussion is that the bar operates against above di action arising to a party to a Hindu marriage w of action ar from solemnization of their marriage. year from ontained in the . The exception to the above bar is contain 14. The t that exception oviso to Section 14 of the H.M.A. First that proviso ation being filed ay be invoked only upon specific application b may be riage within one a party seeking to dissolve a Hindu Marriage w by a part may be lifted by ar of its solemnization. Second, the bar may be year of i ind the statutory ssing an appropriate order, keeping in mind the passing to be presented feguards. Thus, it may ‘allow’ a petition to be safeguar n of a Hindu ithin one year from the solemnization of within o case involves arriage. That may be done the case marriage or it involves xceptional hardship’ to the petitioner or it ‘exceptio spondent’. That xceptional depravity on the part of the Respond ‘exceptio e absolute. The wer once exercised has not been made abso power o tion to provide mpetent Court would retain its jurisdiction t compete a case, may not at the decree of divorce, if passed, in such a case that the d ar from the date given effect until after expiry of one year from be given petition (after the marriage or it may dismiss the petit of the in exercise of lowing the presentation of such petition in e allowing f the H.M.A), if wer under the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the H power un permission was later reaches a conclusion that the permis it later presentation or the petitioner on misrepresen tained by obtained er consideration ncealment of the nature of the case. Further con concealm while granting to be made by the competent Court while is to be 14 (1) of the rmission under the proviso to Section 14 permissi .M.A. Thus, the .M.A. in terms of Section 14 (2) of the H.M.A. H.M.A. o the interest of mpetent Court would also have regard to the compete probability of ildren of marriage and reasonable proba children conciliation. reconcili . Thus, the presentation of the petition within o 15. Thus t permitted under the Act by way of general la not perm a wholesome reading of the provision it re on a wh use of action to dissolve a Hindu marriage may cause of a party thereto, within the first year of marria to a part or cases ‘extreme hardship’ or in case pravity’ suffered by the petitioner. Barring depravity ntingencies, no other exists. Even then, that continge tion is not available on its own. Its existence action is aimed by the petitioner, by filing a specific app claimed e Competent Court and it has to be first e the Com fore that Court. Only upon that plea being acce before th ithin one year is eral law. In fact it reveals that ge may not arise marriage, except ‘extreme rring those two , that cause of stence has to be ic application to first established g accepted, such involving MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 5 of 9 petition may be entertained. Here, no applic a petitio ed or considered or allowed by the learned Co filed or fore entertaining the divorce petition filed before spondent. For that reason, the ratio of the Ma Respond in Indumati Vs. Krishnamurthy 1998 SC Court in ad 477 is distinguishable as in that case an a Mad 47 ade under the proviso to Section 14 (1) was al made un r opinion a divorce petition filed under H.M. our opin e year of marriage cannot be entertained u one yea titioner/s first file an application in terms of th petitione to Sectio Section 14 (1) and unless that application lowed. allowed. application was Court below, filed by the he Madras High 98 SCC Online e an application was allowed. In H.M.A. within ined unless the s of the proviso ication is first 8. The principles laid down in Alka Saxena ( The pr (Supra) provide a legal framew framework ensuring that Courts do not lig not lightly entertain divorce petiti petitions within one year of marriage. T iage. The rationale his restriction is twofold – behind this res i. To pr To protect the sanctity of marriage and en and ensure spouses make sincere efforts at reconciliation be make ion before seeking dissolution. dissol ii. To pr To prevent frivolous or premature litigatio tigation, which may arise from transient disputes or impulsive de arise sive decisions. Section 14 starts with a non-obstante claus Section clause, meaning it overrides all o s all other provisions of the HMA. It explic explicitly prohibits not just the Co Court from entertaining a divorce petitio petition within one year of marria marriage but also prevents a party from pres m presenting such a petition. The . The decision further emphasises that the st the statutory bar is absolute unle unless a specific application for leave leave is filed and allowed. In ca cases where an application under the p r the proviso is not made, the divo e divorce petition itself is not maintainable. nable. However, the proviso to se to section 14(1) permits a relaxation of ion of this bar in exceptional ca nal cases where the petitioner can demo demonstrate either MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 6 of 9 exceptional nal hardship suffered by the petitioner, o ner, or exceptional depravity on y on the part of the Respondent. The The Court retains discretion in n in such cases to allow the petition to on to be presented within one ye one year, provided the plea is substantiate tantiated through a separate appl application seeking permission to file file for divorce prematurely. F rely. Further, even if permission is granted, anted, the Court has the power to w er to withhold the operation of the decree u cree until after one year from the m the date of marriage, or dismiss the petit e petition if it finds that leave ave was obtained through misrepres srepresentation or ment. concealment. 9. In the instant case, given that the marriage In the rriage took place on 13th May 202 ay 2020 and the divorce petition was filed s filed on 7th July 2020, it is ev t is evident that the petition was presente esented within two months of the of the marriage, falling squarely within the in the statutory bar imposed by S by Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Ac age Act, 1955. The Family Court Court, in strict adherence to the law, ought to ught to have nipped the proceeding eedings in the bud at the outset, refusing to sing to entertain the petition withou without a separate application for leave. How e. However, what is striking in the in the present case is that both parties activ s actively contested the case on e on merits, led evidence, and particip participated in the adjudication p tion process without ever raising an object objection regarding its maintaina tainability under Section 14. It is further obs er observed that by the time the le the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak adrak delivered the judgment, mo t, more than three years had already elap y elapsed since the solemnisation ation of marriage. Additionally, it is unden undeniable that the husband never never made any separate prayer for grant o grant of leave under Section 14, no 14, nor did the wife raise any challenge o nge on that ground MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 7 of 9 until the com e commencement of final arguments. It w . It was only at a belated stage tage that the issue was raised as an objec objection, not as a fundamental c ental challenge to the proceedings but merel merely to highlight a procedural l dural lapse. Furthermore, no specific issue issue regarding the maintainability ability of the petition under Section 14 of t of the HMA was framed by the by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak adrak. 10. In light of the above discussion, we find th In ligh find that remanding the matter for ter for fresh adjudication is a more just just and equitable approach than h than dismissing it purely on procedu rocedural grounds, particularly, given the peculiar circumstances of the of the case and the significant pa nt passage of time. The parties have b ave been residing separately for ly for nearly five years and have actively tively contested the case before fore the learned Judge, Family Court, , Bhadrak, by adducing their g their respective evidence. At this stage, set ge, setting aside the proceedings so ings solely on a technicality would serve n erve no meaningful purpose. 11. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to condone Theref ondone the statutory limitation pres n prescribed under Section 14 of the Hindu indu Marriage Act, 1955, and gran d grant leave in favour of the husband. Con . Consequently, the learned Judge Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak, is directed rected to adjudicate the matter afre ter afresh on merits, ensuring that both partie parties are given a fair and adeq adequate opportunity to be heard. The p The parties present before us are d s are directed to appear before the learned J arned Judge, Family Court, Bhadra hadrak, on 21st April 2025, with a certified ertified copy of this order. The le he learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak hadrak, shall make every endeavo deavour to dispose of the matter afresh with h within a period of four months th nths thereafter. MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 Page 8 of 9 12. It is imperative to clarify that this Court It is Court’s decision to grant leave an ave and remand the matter for fresh adjudi adjudication should not be constr construed as a general precedent to ente o entertain divorce petitions in vi s in violation of Section 14 of the HMA. . The statutory mandate und under Section 14 serves a crucial rucial purpose in discouraging ging hasty dissolution of marriages and and ensuring due deliberation b tion before seeking divorce. In the prese present case, the exceptional ci nal circumstances specifically, the prolong rolonged separation of the parties arties and the advanced stage of litigation ation warranted an equitable appr e approach. This judgment is, therefore, con re, confined strictly to the facts of cts of the present case and should not be mis be misinterpreted as diluting the leg the legislative intent behind Section 14 of th 4 of the HMA. 13. The A
Decision
Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid resaid direction and tion. observation. A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 07-Apr-2025 15:56:29 MATA No.370 of 2 of 2023 (B.P. Ro Jud . Routray) Judge (Chittaranj Jud ranjan Dash) Judge Page 9 of 9