High Court Denies Mutual Divorce Filed Within 6 Months of Marriage Without ‘Exceptional Depravity’
- INTRODUCTION
The Indian judiciary continues to walk a fine line between upholding the sanctity of marriage and recognizing individual freedom within the institution. A recent decision by a High Court—denying a mutual divorce petition filed within six months of marriage—has reignited the debate around the mandatory waiting period under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that such a petition could not be allowed unless there were circumstances showing “exceptional depravity” or hardship. This article explores the legal framework, judicial trends, and the rationale behind this ruling, using plain language to explain a complex legal issue. - LEGAL FRAMEWORK: MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN INDIA
Under Section 13b of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, couples may seek divorce by mutual consent. However, Section 13b (2) imposes a six-month “cooling-off” period after filing the first motion, intended to give spouses time to reconcile.
This provision states that:
“On the motion of both parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1)… the court shall… pass a decree of divorce.”
Yet, this six-month wait is not absolute. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Supreme Court held that courts may waive this period if there is no chance of reconciliation and both parties have settled issues like alimony, custody, and property. - THE RECENT HIGH COURT RULING
In the case that sparked debate, a couple sought mutual divorce within six months of marriage, claiming irreconcilable differences and emotional incompatibility. They filed a joint petition under Section 13B and urged the court to waive the waiting period.
However, the High Court rejected the petition, emphasizing that:
“Marriage is a solemn institution, and the law does not permit it to be ended in haste unless there is exceptional depravity or undue hardship.”
The Court concluded that mere incompatibility within such a short time could not qualify as “exceptional” or “extraordinary” hardship to bypass the statutory waiting period. - JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ‘EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP
The idea of “exceptional hardship” has been interpreted by various courts. In K. Thulasimani v. R. Venkatesan, the Madras High Court held that waiver should not become routine. It should be applied only when parties are in a situation so extreme that continuing the marriage, even for a short period, would cause disproportionate suffering.
Similarly, in Suhasini Raj v. State of NCT, the Delhi High Court clarified that waiver is not a right but a judicial discretion exercised only in extraordinary situations such as domestic violence, abandonment, or fraud.
In the recent case, there were no such grave allegations. The parties merely cited “emotional distance” and “personal differences,” which the Court deemed insufficient. - BALANCING AUTONOMY AND SOCIAL POLICY
The ruling raises a key question: should the law enforce a mandatory waiting period even when both parties voluntarily seek divorce?
Critics argue that the six-month wait is outdated and infantilizes adults by forcing them to stay in an unwanted relationship. Proponents, however, emphasize the need to protect marriage from impulsive dissolutions, especially in a society where familial and societal expectations still hold considerable influence.
The Supreme Court’s flexibility in Amardeep Singh provides a middle ground, allowing waivers in deserving cases. But as the recent ruling shows, courts are cautious not to treat this flexibility as a default option. - CONCLUSION
The High Court’s decision to deny mutual divorce within six months underscores that Indian matrimonial law continues to prioritize reconciliation and careful deliberation over speed. While the option for waiver exists, it is reserved for genuinely exceptional cases.
This judgment reaffirms that while individuals have the right to exit a marriage, the law also has an obligation to ensure that such a step is not taken hastily or without proper cause. As India modernizes its legal system, the balance between individual autonomy and social stability will remain a core challenge in matrimonial jurisprudence.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, practicing divorce law in Mumbai and Pune.Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
