In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the interplay between criminal cases filed by a spouse and the possibility of obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case involved a couple who had been married for a brief period and were facing severe marital discord, leading to the filing of multiple criminal cases by the wife against the husband. Despite these ongoing legal proceedings, both parties sought to dissolve their marriage amicably through mutual consent.
The central issue before the Court was whether the existence of criminal cases filed by one spouse against the other precludes the possibility of granting a divorce by mutual consent. The Court examined the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows for divorce by mutual consent, and Section 14, which imposes a one-year waiting period before a divorce petition can be filed. The proviso to Section 14(1) provides an exception, permitting the filing of a divorce petition within one year if the Court is satisfied that there is exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.
In this case, the couple had been married on August 5, 2024, with the marriage registered on August 12, 2024, and solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on September 3, 2024. Shortly thereafter, due to escalating tensions, the husband raised a complaint on the IGRS portal alleging the threat of a false FIR by the wife. In retaliation, the wife lodged an FIR under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, followed by another FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. These criminal proceedings were ongoing at the time the couple approached the Family Court seeking a divorce by mutual consent.
The Family Court rejected their application, citing the mandatory one-year waiting period stipulated under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Undeterred, the couple approached the Allahabad High Court, challenging the Family Court's decision. The High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the filing of criminal cases by the wife had led to exceptional hardship for the husband, thereby satisfying the conditions laid down in the proviso to Section 14(1).
The Court emphasized that the purpose of the one-year waiting period is to provide a cooling-off period for couples to reconsider their decision to divorce. However, in cases where one party's actions have caused significant distress and hardship to the other, the Court has the discretion to waive this period. The High Court noted that the husband's allegations of a threat of a false FIR and the subsequent criminal cases filed by the wife created an environment of coercion and intimidation, making it untenable for the husband to continue in the marital relationship.
Drawing from precedents such as Mandeep Kaur Bajwa v. Chetanjeet Singh Randhawa, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Court must consider whether there is exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent when deciding on waiving the one-year waiting period, the Allahabad High Court found that the husband's situation met these criteria. The Court further observed that the filing of multiple criminal cases without substantiated evidence could be construed as an abuse of legal provisions, aimed at exerting pressure on the husband.
In light of these findings, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, granting the divorce by mutual consent and waiving the one-year waiting period. The Court's decision underscores the judiciary's recognition of the need to balance the statutory provisions with the realities faced by individuals in distressed marriages. It highlights the Court's role in ensuring that legal provisions are not misused to perpetuate injustice and that individuals are not compelled to endure prolonged hardship due to procedural requirements.
This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for future cases where one spouse's actions, such as filing baseless criminal cases, lead to exceptional hardship for the other spouse. It reaffirms the principle that the law should be a tool for justice and not a means to perpetrate injustice. The decision also reflects the evolving understanding of marital relationships, acknowledging that coercion and intimidation can manifest in various forms, including the misuse of legal provisions.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's judgment serves as a reminder that the legal system must adapt to the changing dynamics of society and provide remedies that are just and equitable. It reinforces the notion that the sanctity of marriage should not be used as a shield to perpetrate injustice and that individuals have the right to seek dissolution of a marriage when faced with circumstances that render the relationship untenable. The Court's decision is a step towards ensuring that the legal process serves its true purpose – to deliver justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.