ORDER 6.12.2000 — The appellant-wife has filed the aforesaid appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, inter alia, challenging the decree of divorce passed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Sec. 7 of the Family Courts Act by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 127 of 1997. Several grounds were urged by the appellant challenging the aforesaid decree. However, in view of the fact that we are going to dispose of the appeal on point of law, we do not feel called upon to go into the disputed questions of facts, lest the same may prejudicially affect the subsequent litigation, if any. Admittedly respondent-husband married the appellant accord¬ing to Hindu caste-customs and rites prevailing in the society on 19.5.1996. It appears that dissensions cropped up between the parties soon after the marriage culminating in filing of a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the hus¬band. The said petition was filed on 5.5.1997. Admittedly respondent-husband married the appellant accord¬ing to Hindu caste-customs and rites prevailing in the society on 19.5.1996. It appears that dissensions cropped up between the parties soon after the marriage culminating in filing of a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the hus¬band. The said petition was filed on 5.5.1997. Sec. 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows : Sec. 14 (1) : Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage: Provided that the Court may, upon application made to it in accordance with such rules as may be made by the High Court in that behalf, allow a petition to be present¬ed before one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the re¬spondent, but if it appears to the Court at the hearing of the petition that the petitioner obtained leave to present the peti¬tion by any misrepresentation or concealment of the nature of the case, the Court may, if it pronounces a decree, do so subject to the condition that the decree shall not have effect until after the expiry of one year from the date to the marriage or may dismiss the petition without prejudice to any petition which may be brought after the expiration of the said one year upon the same or substantially the same of facts as those alleged in support of the petition so dismissed. xx xx xx xx In the present case as would appear from the dates mentioned above, admittedly, the petition for divorce was presented within one year of the marriage in usual course. Thus, the Court was not competent to entertain such a petition for dissolution of mar¬riage by a decree of divorce. Rules laid down in this section are intended to give a fair trial to every marriage. Thus, the Court was not competent to entertain such a petition for dissolution of mar¬riage by a decree of divorce. Rules laid down in this section are intended to give a fair trial to every marriage. The general rule is that no petition for a decree of divorce under any of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be entertained by the Court till the period of one year from the date of marriage is elapsed. However, the legislature in its wisdom has stipulated certain exceptions which are attracted under the proviso to Sec. 14 (1) of the Act. Reading of the proviso reveals that a petition for divorce can be entertained by a Court only when it is satisfied that "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional depravity" will be caused to a party if the petition for divorce is not entertained before completion of one year of the marriage. While considering a case of this nature, the Court must arrive at cogent finding on the basis of subjective satis¬faction, that "exceptional hardship" will be caused to the party who approaches the Court. In the present case, there is absolutely no pleading regard¬ing "hardship" much less, "exceptional hardship". No materials have also been placed regarding exceptional depravity. The Court has also not passed any order disclosing the reasons for invoking the jurisdiction under the proviso. No ground of exceptional hardship has been taken nor there is any finding of the Court below to that effect. In view of the facts stated above, and in view of the re¬striction imposed by Sec. 14 of Act, we hold that the Court below has acted illegally and in excess jurisdiction in enter¬taining a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage before the statutory period of one year is elapsed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. The lower Court record be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.