Waiver of Section 14(1) HMA Waiting Period Permissible in Cases of Exceptional Hardship and Unconsummated Marriage

The appellants were married on 07.05.2025 but separated on 15.05.2025 after living together for only seven days.

The marriage was never consummated, and no children were born from the wedlock.

On 19.09.2025, the parties executed a mutual settlement to dissolve the marriage and subsequently filed a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) along with an application under Section 14 of the HMA seeking a waiver of the mandatory one-year waiting period from the date of marriage.

The Family Court, Karkardooma, dismissed the application and the petition on 08.12.2025, holding that the parties must wait for the expiry of the statutory year.

The appellants challenged this dismissal before the High Court.

The Court applied Section 13B(1) of the HMA, which generally requires a one-year separation before filing for mutual consent divorce.

Section 14 of the HMA, which prohibits divorce petitions within one year of marriage unless "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional depravity" is proven.

It relied on the Full Bench decision in *Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar* [MAT.APP. (F.C.) 111/2025], which established that the one-year period under Section 13B(1) is waivable through the proviso of Section 14(1).

Additionally, the court referenced *Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur* (2017) 8 SCC 746, which held that the six-month "cooling-off" period under Section 13B(2) is directory rather than mandatory.

The Court determined that the legislative intent of Section 14 is to encourage reconciliation, but the proviso acknowledges that certain cases require immediate relief.

Upon a chamber interaction with the parties, the Court was satisfied that the matrimonial bond never meaningfully formed, as the parties separated after only seven days and the marriage remained unconsummated.

The Court reasoned that there was no probability of reconciliation and that forcing the parties to remain legally wedded for the remainder of the statutory year would serve no purpose other than to prolong "exceptional hardship."

Applying the *Shiksha Kumari* precedent, the Court found that it possessed the jurisdiction to grant the waiver if the anvil of "exceptional hardship" was met, which was substantiated by the immediate and total breakdown of the marriage.

The Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 08.12.2025 and allowed the application under Section 14, granting leave to the parties to file their Section 13B(1) petition immediately.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court to proceed with the first motion and to expeditiously consider the second motion (waiving the six-month period) in light of *Amardeep Singh*.