Orissa High Court
Debabrata Debada vs Subhakanti Patra on 3 April, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Corrected
IN THE
E HIGH
HI COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CUTT
MATA No. 370 of 2023
Debabrata Debada
ebadarsan Palei .... Appellant
-versus-
Subhakanti Patra
atra & Another .... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared
appear in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Adv
For Respondent
ndent : Mr. H.S. Panda, Advoca
dvocate
CORA
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN
JAN DASH
JUDGMENT
3rd April, 2025 By The Bench.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. Presen Appeal is directed against the impugned Present impug judgment dated 26th September, Se 2023 of learned Judge, ge, Family F Court, Bhadrak,, wherein whe the prayer of the husband to grant gr decree of divorce has bbeen rejected on the ground of non non-fulfillment of statutory peri period prescribed under Section 14 of o the Hindu Marriagee Act Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA "HMA").
3. The background ba facts of the case aree that the marriage between the Appellant-husband and the Respond spondent-wife was solemnised sed on May 13, 2020, following Hinduu rites and customs.
MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 1 of 9The marriage rriage was arranged by their families, lies, aand after the solemnisation, sation, the couple began their matrimonia imonial life at the husband'ss residence.
res However, within a short hort span sp of time, marital discord discor arose between the parties, leading leadin to serious disputes and aallegations from both sides. The situation situat allegedly deteriorated ated fu further when, on June 24, 2020,, just over o a month after thee marriage, mar the Respondent-wife left ft the matrimonial home andd did di not return despite repeatedd requests requ by the Appellant and his family. The Appellant claimss that all efforts for reconciliation, iation, including interventions by family elders and mediators, rs, failed fail as the Respondent remained adamant adam about not resumingg cohabitation.
coh Subsequently, on July 77, 2020, the Appellant filed file a petition for divorce before the F Family Court, Bhadrak,, invoking invo grounds under the HMA.. However, H this petition was filed f within two months of thee mar marriage, raising concernss under unde Section 14 of the HMA, whichh mandates man that no petition for divorce d can be entertained within ithin one year of marriagee unless unles exceptional hardship or depravity avity iis established. Despite this sstatutory bar, the Family Court proceeded procee with the matter, and both bo parties adduced evidence and conte contested the case on its merits erits without w raising the issue of maintainabil ainability.
4. The learned l Judge, Family Court,, Bhadrak, Bh after examining ng the pleadings, evidence, and arguments ments presented by both parties, rties, dismissed the Appellant-husband''s petition for divorce. The Family Court found that the Appellant Appell failed to establish suffi sufficient grounds for cruelty or desertio esertion under the HMA. The Court C also found that the Appellant failed to make MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 2 of 9 sincere effort efforts for reconciliation before seeking eking divorce, and instead, hastil hastily approached the Court within in two tw months of marriage, e, which whi was in clear contravention off Sect Section 14 of the HMA, barring arring divorce petitions within the first st yea year of marriage unless exceptional excep hardship is demonstrated.
ated. Despite this statutory bar, the Family Court proceeded withh the ccase on merits but ultimately mately concluded that the Appellant did not no establish a valid ground ound for f divorce, leading to the dismissal sal of the t petition.
5. The limited l issue before this Court pertains pe to the procedural ral lap lapse under Section 14 of the HMA.
A. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, hass subm submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Family Court Cou for fresh adjudication, tion, considering c the procedural defect ct and the lapse of substantial ial time.
tim
6. Section 14 of HMA creates a statutory tutory bar on the presentation tion oof a divorce petition within onee year of marriage. This provision vision ensures that matrimonial disputes tes are ar not brought prematurely rely before Courts, allowing spouses uses a reasonable opportunity nity to t reconcile and prevent hasty ty dis dissolutions of marriage.
e. The section reads as -
14. No petition pe for divorce to be presented within ithin one year of marriag arriage.--
(1) Notwithstanding Notwi anything contained in this is Ac Act, it shall not be competent com for any Court to entertain any ny petition p for dissolutio olution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, orce, [unless [ at the date ofo the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed] sed] ssince the date of the marriage:
Provided vided that the Court may, upon applicationn mad made to it in accordanc ordance with such rules as may be madee by thet High MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 3 of 9 Court in that th behalf, allow a petition to be presented esented [before one year has h elapsed] since the date of the marriag arriage on the ground und thatth the case is one of exceptional hardship hardsh to the petitioner tioner or of exceptional depravity on thee part par of the Responde pondent, but if it appears to the Court at the hearing he of the petitio petition that the petitioner obtained leave to present pr the petition tion by b any misrepresentation or concealmenalment of the naturere of the case, the Court may, if it pronounces unces a decree, do so subject subj to the condition that the decree shall not have effect ct until unt after the [expiry of one year] fromom the date of the marriage marria or may dismiss the petition without thout prejudice p to any ny petition pe which may be brought after [expiration [expi of the said oneo year] upon the same or substantially tially the t same factss as those alleged in support of thee pet petition so dismissed issed.
(2) In dis disposing of any application under this his section se for leavee to present p a petition for divorce before the [expiration [ex of one ne year] ye from the date of the marriage, the CourtCo shall havee regard rega to the interests of any children off the marriage and to the question whether there is a re reasonable probabilit bability of a reconciliation between the parties partie before the expiration expira of the [said one year].
Howev However, in rare and exceptional circums ircumstances, strict application ion of Section 14 could lead to undue due hardship h to a spouse who has h genuinely suffered grave cruelty elty or o deprivation within a short period of marriage.
7. The interpretation of Section 14 of HMA MA iis extensively analysed in th the recent decision of Hon'ble Allahaba lahabad High Court in the matter atter of o Smt. Alka Saxena Vs. Sri Pankaj aj Saxena S passed in FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 20151 on 24th October, T APP Octo 2024-
13.. Clearly, Clea the bar thus created is not on the he ente entertainment of a peti petition within one year of the Hindu marriag arriage. Rather, thee bar arises a on the presentation of a petition ition wwithin one year ar of a marriage. Therefore, the statute prevents events a party to a Hindu marriage to 'present' any petition to dissolve diss their 1 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170550-DB 20 MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 4 of 9 marriage arriage before any competent Court, within in one year from thee solemnization sole of their marriage. The upshotupsh of the above ove didiscussion is that the bar operates against gainst the cause of action arising to a party to a Hindu marriageriage within w one year ar from solemnization of their marriage.
14.. The exception to the above bar is contain ontained in the proviso oviso to Section 14 of the H.M.A. Firstt that exception may ay be invoked only upon specific application ation being b filed by a party part seeking to dissolve a Hindu Marriageriage within w one year ar of iits solemnization. Second, the bar may be lifted by passing ssing an appropriate order, keeping in mind ind the statutory safeguar feguards. Thus, it may 'allow' a petition to be presented within ithin oneo year from the solemnizationn of a Hindu marriage arriage. That may be done if the case involves 'exceptio xceptional hardship' to the petitioner or it involves 'exceptio xceptional depravity on the part of the Respond spondent'. That power wer once o exercised has not been madee absolute.
abso The
compete
mpetent Court would retain its jurisdiction tion tot provide
that
at the decree
d of divorce, if passed, in such a case,
case may not
be given effect until after expiry of one year ar from the date of the marriage or it may dismiss the petition petit (after allowing lowing the presentation of such petition in exercise e of power wer under un the proviso of Section 14 (1) off the H.M.A), H if it later reaches a conclusion that the permission permis was obtained tained by the petitioner on misrepresen presentation or concealm ncealment of the nature of the case. Further er consideration con is to be made by the competent Court while granting permissi rmission under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the H.M.A. .M.A. in terms of Section 14 (2) of the H.M.A. .M.A. Thus, the compete mpetent Court would also have regard too the interest of children ildren of marriage and reasonable proba probability of reconcili conciliation.
15.. Thus, Thus the presentation of the petition within ithin oone year is nott permitted perm under the Act by way of general eral la law. In fact on a wholesome wh reading of the provision it re reveals that cause use of action to dissolve a Hindu marriage ge may not arise to a party part thereto, within the first year of marriage, marria except in cases case involving 'extreme hardship' or 'extreme depravity pravity' suffered by the petitioner. Barring rring those two continge ntingencies, no other exists. Even then,, that cause of action tion is not available on its own. Its existence stence has to be claimed aimed by the petitioner, by filing a specific ic application app to thee Competent Com Court and it has to be first established e before fore that th Court. Only upon that plea beingg accepted, acce such MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 5 of 9 a petition petitio may be entertained. Here, no applic application was filed ed or considered or allowed by the learned CourtCo below, before fore entertaining the divorce petition filed by the Respond spondent. For that reason, the ratio of thehe Madras Ma High Court in Indumati Vs. Krishnamurthy 1998 98 SCC SC Online Madad 47477 is distinguishable as in that casee an application a made ade under un the proviso to Section 14 (1) was allowed.
al In
ourr opinion
opin a divorce petition filed under H.M.A.
H.M. within
onee year
yea of marriage cannot be entertained ined unless u the petitione titioner/s first file an application in termss of th the proviso to Section Sectio 14 (1) and unless that application ication is first allowed.
lowed.
8. The principles pr laid down in Alka Saxena (Supra) ( provide a legal framework framew ensuring that Courts do not lightly lig entertain divorce petiti petitions within one year of marriage.
iage. The T rationale behind this his res restriction is twofold -
i. To protect
pr the sanctity of marriage and ensure
en spouses
make sincere efforts at reconciliation ion before be seeking dissol dissolution.
ii. To prevent
pr frivolous or premature litigatio
tigation, which may arise from transient disputes or impulsive sive de decisions.
Section 14 starts with a non-obstante clause, claus meaning it overridess all other o provisions of the HMA. It explicitly explic prohibits not just the Court Co from entertaining a divorce petition petitio within one year of marria marriage but also prevents a party from m presenting pres such a petition.. The decision further emphasises that the st statutory bar is absolute unless unle a specific application for leave is filed and allowed. In cases ca where an application underr the pproviso is not made, thee divorce divo petition itself is not maintainable.
nable. However, the proviso to section se 14(1) permits a relaxation ion of this bar in exceptional nal ca cases where the petitioner can demonstrate demo either MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 6 of 9 exceptional nal hardship suffered by the petitioner, ner, oor exceptional depravityy on the part of the Respondent. The Court retains discretionn in such cases to allow the petition on to be presented within one year, ye provided the plea is substantiate tantiated through a separate appl application seeking permission to file for divorce prematurely.
rely. F Further, even if permission is granted, anted, the Court has the power er to withhold w the operation of the decree cree until u after one year from m the date of marriage, or dismiss thee petition petit if it finds that leave ave was obtained through misrepres srepresentation or concealment.
ment.
9. In the instant case, given that the marriage rriage took place on 13th May ay 2020 202 and the divorce petition wass filed on 7th July 2020, itt is ev evident that the petition was presente esented within two months of the marriage, falling squarely within in the statutory bar imposed by S Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage age Act, Ac 1955. The Family Court, Court in strict adherence to the law, ought ught to have nipped the proceeding eedings in the bud at the outset, refusing sing to entertain the petition without withou a separate application for leave.
e. How However, what is striking in the present case is that both partiess activ actively contested the casee on merits, led evidence, and participated particip in the adjudication tion process p without ever raising an object objection regarding its maintaina tainability under Section 14. It is further er observed obs that by the time the le learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak adrak delivered the judgment, t, more mo than three years had alreadyy elap elapsed since the solemnisation ation of marriage. Additionally, it is undeniable unden that the husband never made any separate prayer for grant oof leave under Section 14, no nor did the wife raise any challenge nge on o that ground MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 7 of 9 until thee commencement com of final arguments.. It was w only at a belated stage tage that the issue was raised as an objection, objec not as a fundamental ental challenge c to the proceedings but merely merel to highlight a procedural dural llapse. Furthermore, no specific issue regarding the maintainability ability of the petition under Section 14 of the t HMA was framed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak adrak.
10. In light ligh of the above discussion, we find that th remanding the matter ter for fresh adjudication is a more just and equitable approachh than dismissing it purely on procedu rocedural grounds, particularly, given the peculiar circumstances of the case and the significant nt passage pa of time. The parties have ave been b residing separately ly for nearly five years and have actively tively contested the case before fore the learned Judge, Family Court,, Bhadrak, by adducingg their respective evidence. At this stage, ge, set setting aside the proceedings ings solely so on a technicality would serve erve nno meaningful purpose.
11. Theref Therefore, we deem it appropriate to condone ondone the statutory limitationn prescribed pres under Section 14 of the Hindu indu Marriage Act, 1955, andd gran grant leave in favour of the husband.. Consequently, Con the learned Judge, Judge Family Court, Bhadrak, is directed rected to adjudicate the matter ter afresh afre on merits, ensuring that both partie parties are given a fair and adequate adeq opportunity to be heard. The pparties present before uss are ddirected to appear before the learned arned Judge, J Family Court, Bhadra hadrak, on 21st April 2025, with a certified ertified copy of this order. The he learned le Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak hadrak, shall make every endeavo deavour to dispose of the matter afreshh with within a period of four months nths thereafter.
th MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 8 of 9
12. It is imperative to clarify that this Court's Court decision to grant leave ave and an remand the matter for fresh adjudi adjudication should not be construed constr as a general precedent too ente entertain divorce petitionss in violation vi 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 ensuring due deliberation tion before b seeking divorce. In the present prese case, the exceptional nal ci circumstances specifically, the prolong rolonged separation of the parties arties and the advanced stage of litigation ation warranted an equitablee approach.
appr This judgment is, therefore, re, con confined strictly to the facts cts of the present case and should not be misinterpreted mis as diluting the legislative leg intent behind Section 144 of th the HMA.
13. The Appeal A is disposed of with the aforesaid resaid direction and observation.
tion.
(B.P.. Ro Routray) Jud Judge (Chittaranj ranjan Dash) Jud Judge A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MATA No.370 of 2023 2 Page 9 of 9 Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 07-Apr-2025 15:56:29