Debabrata Debadarsan Palei Vs Subhakanti Patra

Pres e nt Appeal is directed against the imp u gned judgment dated 26^th S eptember, 2023 of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak, w h erein the prayer of the husband to g rant decree of divorce has been rejected on the ground of no n -fulfillment of statutory p e riod prescribed under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “H M A”).

¶15

The background facts of the case are th a t the marriage between th e Appellant-husband and the Respo n dent-wife was solemnised o n May 13, 2020, following Hindu rit e s and customs.

¶16

Page 1 of 9

¶17

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶18

The marria g e was arranged by their families, and after the solemnisatio n , the couple began their matrimo n ial life at the husband’s r e sidence. However, within a short span of time, marital disc o rd arose between the parties, lea d ing to serious disputes an d allegations from both sides. The sit u ation allegedly deteriorated further when, on June 24, 2020, jus t over a month after the m a rriage, the Respondent-wife left t h e matrimonial home and did not return despite repeated requests by the Appellant a n d his family. The Appellant claims th a t all efforts for reconciliatio n , including interventions by family elders and mediators, f a iled as the Respondent remained ada m ant about not resuming c o habitation. Subsequently, on July 7, 2020, the Appellant fi l ed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Bhadrak, i n voking grounds under the HMA. However, this petition wa s filed within two months of the m a rriage, raising concerns un d er Section 14 of the HMA, which m a ndates that no petition for divorce can be entertained withi n one year of marriage un l ess exceptional hardship or depravit y is established. Despite this statutory bar, the Family Court proceeded with the matter, and b oth parties adduced evidence and co n tested the case on its merits without raising the issue of maintaina b ility.

¶19

The learned Judge, Family Court, B hadrak, after examining t h e pleadings, evidence, and argumen t s presented by both partie s , dismissed the Appellant-husband ’ s petition for divorce. Th e Family Court found that the App e llant failed to establish su f ficient grounds for cruelty or dese r tion under the HMA. The C ourt also found that the Appellant failed to make

¶20

Page 2 of 9

¶21

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶22

sincere effo r ts for reconciliation before seekin g divorce, and instead, has t ily approached the Court within t w o months of marriage, w h ich was in clear contravention of Se c tion 14 of the HMA, barri n g divorce petitions within the first y e ar of marriage unless exc e ptional hardship is demonstrated. Despite this statutory bar, the Family Court proceeded with the case on merits but ultimate l y concluded that the Appellant did n ot establish a valid groun d for divorce, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

¶23

The limited issue before this Court p ertains to the procedural l a pse under Section 14 of the HMA. M r. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, has su b mitted that the matter sho u ld be remanded to the Family C ourt for fresh adjudication , considering the procedural defect a n d the lapse of substantial time.

¶24

Sect i on 14 of HMA creates a statuto r y bar on the presentation of a divorce petition within one ye a r of marriage. This provisi o n ensures that matrimonial disputes a re not brought prematurely before Courts, allowing spouses a reasonable opportunity to reconcile and prevent hasty d issolutions of marriage. T h e section reads as –

¶25

No p etition for divorce to be presented withi n one year of marri a ge.—

¶26

(1) Not w ithstanding anything contained in this A ct, it shall not be c o mpetent for any Court to entertain any p etition for dissolut i on of a marriage by a decree of divorce, [unless at the dat e of the presentation of the petition on e year has elapsed] since the date of the marriage:

¶27

Provide d that the Court may, upon application m a de to it in accorda n ce with such rules as may be made b y the High

Page 3 of 9

MATA No.370 of

2023

Court i n that behalf, allow a petition to be presen t ed [before one yea r has elapsed] since the date of the marri a ge on the ground t hat the case is one of exceptional hard s hip to the petition e r or of exceptional depravity on the p art of the Respon d ent, but if it appears to the Court at the hearing of the peti t ion that the petitioner obtained leave to p resent the petition by any misrepresentation or concealm e nt of the nature of the case, the Court may, if it pronounce s a decree, do so s u bject to the condition that the decree sha l l not have effect u n til after the [expiry of one year] from t he date of the mar r iage or may dismiss the petition withou t prejudice to any p etition which may be brought after [ex p iration of the said one year] upon the same or substantiall y the same facts a s those alleged in support of the petition so dismiss e d.

¶32

(2) In d isposing of any application under this s ection for leave to present a petition for divorce before the [ expiration of one y ear] from the date of the marriage, the C ourt shall have re g ard to the interests of any children of th e marriage and to the question whether there is a r easonable probabi l ity of a reconciliation between the par t ies before the expi r ation of the [said one year].

¶33

How e ver, in rare and exceptional circu m stances, strict application o f Section 14 could lead to undue hardship to a spouse who has genuinely suffered grave cruelty or deprivation within a sho r t period of marriage.

¶34

The interpretation of Section 14 of HM A is extensively analysed in t he recent decision of Hon’ble Allaha b ad High Court in the matte r of Smt. Alka Saxena Vs. Sri Pankaj Saxena passed in FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2015¹ on 24^th October, 2024 –

¶35

Cl e arly, the bar thus created is not on the e n tertainment of a p e tition within one year of the Hindu marri a ge. Rather, the ba r arises on the presentation of a petition within one year o f a marriage. Therefore, the statute preve n ts a party to a Hin d u marriage to ‘present’ any petition to d i ssolve their

¶36

1 Neutral Citation No. - 2 024:AHC:170550-DB

¶37

Page 4 of 9

¶38

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶39

marria g e before any competent Court, within o n e year from the so l emnization of their marriage. The up s hot of the above discussion is that the bar operates again s t the cause of acti o n arising to a party to a Hindu marriag e within one year fr o m solemnization of their marriage. 14. T h e exception to the above bar is contained in the provis o to Section 14 of the H.M.A. First th a t exception may b e invoked only upon specific application being filed by a p a rty seeking to dissolve a Hindu Marriag e within one year o f its solemnization. Second, the bar may be lifted by passin g an appropriate order, keeping in mind t h e statutory safegu a rds. Thus, it may ‘allow’ a petition to b e presented within one year from the solemnization of a Hindu marria g e. That may be done if the case involves ‘excep t ional hardship’ to the petitioner or it involves ‘excep t ional depravity on the part of the Respo n dent’. That power once exercised has not been made absolute. The compe t ent Court would retain its jurisdiction to provide that th e decree of divorce, if passed, in such a c a se, may not be giv e n effect until after expiry of one year fr o m the date of the marriage or it may dismiss the pe t ition (after allowi n g the presentation of such petition in exercise of power under the proviso of Section 14 (1) of th e H.M.A), if it late r reaches a conclusion that the per m ission was obtain e d by the petitioner on misrepres e ntation or conce a lment of the nature of the case. Further c o nsideration is to b e made by the competent Court wh i le granting permission under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the H.M. A . in terms of Section 14 (2) of the H.M. A . Thus, the compe t ent Court would also have regard to th e interest of childr e n of marriage and reasonable pro b ability of reconc i liation. 15. Th u s, the presentation of the petition withi n one year is not pe r mitted under the Act by way of general law. In fact on a w holesome reading of the provision it r eveals that cause o f action to dissolve a Hindu marriage may not arise to a p a rty thereto, within the first year of marr i age, except in ca s es involving ‘extreme hardship’ o r ‘extreme depravity’ suffered by the petitioner. Barrin g those two contin g encies, no other exists. Even then, th a t cause of action is not available on its own. Its existen c e has to be claime d by the petitioner, by filing a specific a p plication to the C o mpetent Court and it has to be first established before that Court. Only upon that plea being ac c epted, such

¶40

Page 5 of 9

¶41

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶42

a petition may be entertained. Here, no appl i cation was filed o r considered or allowed by the learned C ourt below, before entertaining the divorce petition fi l ed by the Respo n dent. For that reason, the ratio of the M adras High Court i n Indumati Vs. Krishnamurthy 1998 SCC Online Mad 477 is distinguishable as in that case an application made u nder the proviso to Section 14 (1) was allowed. In our opinion a divorce petition filed under H. M .A. within one y e ar of marriage cannot be entertained unless the petitio n er/s first file an application in terms of the proviso to Sec t ion 14 (1) and unless that applicati o n is first allowe d .

¶43

The p rinciples laid down in Alka Saxena ( Supra ) provide a legal fra m ework ensuring that Courts do not l i ghtly entertain divorce pet i tions within one year of marriage. The rationale behind this r e striction is twofold –

¶44

i. To protect the sanctity of marriage and ensure spouses ma k e sincere efforts at reconciliation b efore seeking dis s olution.

¶45

ii. To p revent frivolous or premature litigat i on, which may aris e from transient disputes or impulsive d ecisions.

¶46

Section 14 starts with a non-obstante cla u se, meaning it overrides all other provisions of the HMA. It exp l icitly prohibits not just the C ourt from entertaining a divorce peti t ion within one year of marr i age but also prevents a party from pr e senting such a petition. Th e decision further emphasises that the statutory bar is absolute un l ess a specific application for leav e is filed and allowed. In c ases where an application under the proviso is not made, the di v orce petition itself is not maintainabl e . However, the proviso to s ection 14(1) permits a relaxation o f this bar in exceptional cases where the petitioner can de m onstrate either

¶47

Page 6 of 9

¶48

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶49

exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner, or exceptional depravity o n the part of the Respondent. The Court retains discretion i n such cases to allow the petition t o be presented within one y ear, provided the plea is substanti a ted through a separate ap p lication seeking permission to fi l e for divorce prematurely. Further, even if permission is grante d , the Court has the power t o withhold the operation of the decree until after one year from t h e date of marriage, or dismiss the pe t ition if it finds that leave was obtained through misrep r esentation or concealment.

¶50

In t h e instant case, given that the marriag e took place on 13th May 2 0 20 and the divorce petition was filed on 7th July 2020, it is e vident that the petition was presen t ed within two months of t h e marriage, falling squarely within t h e statutory bar imposed by Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage A ct, 1955. The Family Cou r t, in strict adherence to the law, ought to have nipped the proceedi n gs in the bud at the outset, refusing to entertain the petition wit h out a separate application for leave. H o wever, what is striking in t h e present case is that both parties ac t ively contested the case o n merits, led evidence, and parti c ipated in the adjudication process without ever raising an objection regarding its maintain a bility under Section 14. It is further observed that by the time the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadr a k delivered the judgment, m ore than three years had already el a psed since the solemnisatio n of marriage. Additionally, it is und e niable that the husband ne v er made any separate prayer for gran t of leave under Section 14, n or did the wife raise any challenge on that ground

¶51

Page 7 of 9

¶52

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶53

until the co m mencement of final arguments. It was only at a belated stag e that the issue was raised as an obj e ction, not as a fundamental challenge to the proceedings but mer e ly to highlight a procedura l lapse. Furthermore, no specific issu e regarding the maintainabil i ty of the petition under Section 14 o f the HMA was framed by t h e learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadr a k.

¶54

In li g ht of the above discussion, we find that remanding the matter f or fresh adjudication is a more jus t and equitable approach t h an dismissing it purely on proce d ural grounds, particularly, given the peculiar circumstances of t h e case and the significant p assage of time. The parties have been residing separately f o r nearly five years and have activel y contested the case before the learned Judge, Family Court , Bhadrak, by adducing th e ir respective evidence. At this stage, s etting aside the proceedings solely on a technicality would serve no meaningful purpose.

¶55

Ther e fore, we deem it appropriate to cond o ne the statutory limitation pr e scribed under Section 14 of the Hind u Marriage Act, 1955, and g r ant leave in favour of the husband. C o nsequently, the learned Jud g e, Family Court, Bhadrak, is directed to adjudicate the matter a f resh on merits, ensuring that both pa r ties are given a fair and ad e quate opportunity to be heard. The parties present before us ar e directed to appear before the learne d Judge, Family Court, Bhad r ak, on 21st April 2025, with a certif i ed copy of this order. The l earned Judge, Family Court, Bhadr a k, shall make every endea v our to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of four months thereafter.

¶56

Page 8 of 9

¶57

MATA No.370 of 2023

¶58

It i s imperative to clarify that this Cou r t’s decision to grant leave a nd remand the matter for fresh adju d ication should not be con s trued as a general precedent to en t ertain divorce petitions in violation of Section 14 of the HMA. The statutory mandate u n der Section 14 serves a cruci a l purpose in discouragin g hasty dissolution of marriages an d ensuring due deliberation before seeking divorce. In the pr e sent case, the exceptional c ircumstances specifically, the prolo n ged separation of the parti e s and the advanced stage of litigatio n warranted an equitable ap p roach. This judgment is, therefore, c o nfined strictly to the facts o f the present case and should not be m isinterpreted as diluting the l egislative intent behind Section 14 of t he HMA.

¶59

The A ppeal is disposed of with the aforesa i d direction and observation.

¶60

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶61

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶62

A.K.Pradhan/Bijay

¶63

Signature Not Verified

¶64

Digitally Signed MATA No.370 of 2023 Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 07-Apr-2025 15:56:29

¶65

Page 9 of 9

Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty Vs Anusaya Mohanty

Gurunath Sahu Vs Sumati Sahu

Gurunath Sahu Vs Sumati Sahu and Anr.

Jasmin Dash Vs Sujit Dash

Pinki Das Vs Manoj Kumar Das

State of Orissa Vs Rajendra Nayak