Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 57 (AP)

Savanam Giridhar Reddy v. Savanam Pavani

2022-01-17

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, who are married according to Hindu Rites and Customs under the Hindu Marriage Act on 31.05.2021. The marriage is said to have run into trouble and the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent are said to have been settled on 13.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent have approached the Family Court, Guntur by way of F.C.O.P., for grant of divorce, by way of mutual consent. As the mandatory period of one year before presentation of the application for divorce, under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had not been completed, the petitioner moved I.A. No. 636 of 2021 under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of exceptional hardship to the petitioner. The said ground of exceptional hardship is said to be that all disputes including a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner have been settled and the petitioner and the respondent need to get on with life. 2. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri Kesana Rama Kotewara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The institution of marriage, as far as Hindus are concerned, is a sacrament. The legislature, keeping in view this fact, has placed certain restrictions for moving a Court for dissolution of such marriages. Section 14 stipulates that no petition for divorce can be presented within one year of marriage. Section 13B of the Act stipulates that a petition for divorce by mutual consent can be filed only after the couple had separated and were leaving separately for a period of one year or more. 5. The legislature while stipulating a minimum period of one year for presentation of a petition for divorce under Section 14 of the Act had also incorporated a proviso which permits an application for divorce, to be made, with the leave of the Court, where exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent is made out before the Court. 6. The words 'exceptional hardship' and 'exceptional depravity' make it clear that the bar for obtaining the leave of the Court has been set very high. 6. The words 'exceptional hardship' and 'exceptional depravity' make it clear that the bar for obtaining the leave of the Court has been set very high. Such leave can be granted only where a petitioner is able to show that the petitioner would face exceptional hardship in continuing the marriage or where the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the respondent has behaved with such exceptional depravity that continuation of the marriage would be extremely detrimental to the petitioner. 7. In the present case, the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to file a petition for divorce within a few months after the marriage on the ground of exceptional hardship. It is the case of the petitioner, before the trial Court, that there were various disputes including a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner and the same had been resolved. The petitioner contends that any further delay in grant of divorce would result in loss of enjoyment of life and mar their future prospects. In my view, such a ground cannot be treated as a case of exceptional hardship. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Family Court was right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.