AKSHARA. A Vs. ROHIN S. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the power of superintendence vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, Chavara in IA No.1189/2017 on a petition filed by the parties herein, seeking exemption and waiver of the statutory period stipulated under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent herein jointly filed an original petition before the Family Court under Section 13B of the Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage existing between them, based on mutual agreement. Along with the said application, I.A No.1189/2017 was filed seeking leave of the court to present the original petition before expiry of the period of one year since the date of the marriage. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it is stated that, both of them have realized from the first day of their marriage that they are not compatible to proceed under a marital tie; and shortly thereafter they have decided to separate. It is specifically mentioned that, the parties lost unanimity to continue under the conjugal tie on the day of the marriage itself and the marriage was not consummated. They lived together hardly for one month, within which time they realized that the marital bondage has been broken irretrievably. They decided to live separated, after informing the parents and relatives of both the parties. All attempts made by their parents and relatives to resume marital harmony turned futile. Mediation attempts made by office bearers of the branch committee of S.N.D.P also failed and they were also convinced about the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. Thereafter all the issues with respect to exchange of properties were settled and a decision was taken to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent through process of law. It is specifically mentioned that, the marriage was on 09-12-2016 and they started living separated on 17-01-2017. It is also stated that, the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court, who is the respondent herein, is working abroad and is available on a short leave to prefer the joint petition based on the settlement arrived and that he has to return back within a short span. It was specifically mentioned that if the parties have to wait for expiry of the one year period as required under the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act, it will adversely and drastically affect the studies of the petitioner herein and also the job of the respondent abroad. Hence it is stated that if the petition is not allowed that will put the petitioner to exceptional hardships and exceptional depravity to the respondent, who is the 2nd petitioner.

(3.) The court below had dealt with the interim application by keeping the original petition as unnumbered. The learned Judge of the Family Court observed that, the statutory requirement of expiration of one year period can be waived only when the parties have shown that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. The court below observed that the parties have not averred any such circumstances. It was observed that the averments to the effect that the relationship was broken from the first day of the marriage itself or that the marriage was not consummated or that they have separated by mutual consent are not grounds available under the proviso to Section 14 (1) in order to waive the statutory period. Hence the application was dismissed. Consequently the original petition was returned for presentation after expiry of the statutory period stipulated under Section 14 (1). It is aggrieved by the said order the above original petition is preferred.