Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court has held that denial of conjugal relationship is not a ground for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, before the mandated cooling off period subsides.

“Once the Parliament, in its wisdom, has legislated that denial of cohabitation/conjugal relationship over a period of one year, or more, would tantamount to cruelty, it cannot be said that denial of sex simpliciter within the period of one year, would be a case of exceptional hardship. Thus we reject the submission of the appellant that the denial of conjugal relations by both parties is such, that it causes “exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity” to either, or both of them”, stated court.

The High Court has refused to set aside an order passed by the trial court, dismissing the mutual divorce petition filed within one year of marriage.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that denial of conjugal relationship does not amount to ‘exceptional hardship’ or ‘exceptional depravity’.

The appellant (wife) had challenged the order passed by the family court. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on April 4, 2021, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ram Nagar, Uttrakhand.

The appellant started living separately on April 14, 2021, in the same matrimonial home, Faridabad, Haryana after marital differences cropped up between the couple. On July 29, 2021, the appellant left her matrimonial home and went to her parental house at Rohini, Delhi.

Seeing no possibility of reconciliation, the appellant and the respondent accordingly, executed an MOU on September 16, 2021, settling their disputes and undertaking to co-operate with each other to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

The appellant submitted that, “There was a denial of sex from both sides, which fact itself is an exceptional hardship/depravity on the part of the petitioners to each other, making it a fit case to be dealt with under the present application”.

The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shivani Yadav v. Amit Yadav (2021) where the court held, that

“Since the couple had stayed together only for two days, this is the sufficient ground to allow their application filed under Section 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year”.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the parties have separated within a few days of marriage, and have mutually decided to end the marital relationship, then not granting divorce due to non-fulfillment of the minimum requirement of one year would tantamount to exceptional hardship, not only to one but both the parties.

Earlier, the Family Court of Rohini on October 16, 2021, had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband and wife under Section 13B (divorce by mutual consent) for dissolution of marriage. The court had dismissed the application under Section 14 and the petition filed under HMA as it was filed before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage.

The High Court said, “The intent behind framing Section 13, 13B, and 14 of the HMA was to protect both the individuals, as also the marriage. What the legislature has sought to address by way of divorce on the ground of cruelty cannot be categorized as exceptional hardship or depravity so as to bypass the well-established procedure”.

The bench while disagreeing with aforementioned Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment said, “We reject this appeal and uphold the order of the family court rejecting the application of parties filed under the proviso to Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We reserve the right of the parties to move to the appropriate court independently, after the expiry of one year of separation”.

Case Title: Rishu Aggarwal v. Mohit Goyal