Case Title : Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar and Case no.MAT.APP.(F.C.) 111/2025
In a landmark judgment reshaping Indian matrimonial jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has held that the statutory requirement of one-year separation for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory and not mandatory. The ruling reflects a decisive shift from procedural rigidity toward a more humane, realistic, and justice-oriented interpretation of family law.
A Full Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The statutory period of 01-year prescribed under section 13B(1) of the HMA as a pre-requisite for presenting the first motion, can be waived, by applying the proviso to section 14(1) of the HMA. … The waiver of the 01-year separation period under section 13B(1) of the HMA does not preclude waiver of the 06-month cooling-off period for filing the second motion under section 13B(2); and waiver of the 01-year period under section 13B(1) and the 06-month period under section 13B(2), are to be considered independently of each other.”
The High Court with respect to the first legal question, noted, “In view of the foregoing legal landscape, we are of the view that the first question of law framed for consideration before us –viz., whether the statutory period of 01-year prescribed under section 13B(1) of the HMA as a pre-requisite for presenting the first motion, can be waived – already stands answered in the affirmative by the Division Bench in Sankalp Singh invoking the proviso to section 14(1); and we find no reason to deviate from that judicial view. We may clarify that no decision of the Supreme Court has been brought to our notice which may have overruled Sankalp Singh or laid down law to the contrary.”
Coming to the second legal question, the Court said that waiver of the 01-year period is permitted only in cases of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, as referred-to in that proviso.
The Court ruled that the waiver can be granted both by the Family Court as well as the High Court and as contemplated in the proviso to Section 14(1) of the HMA, where a Court finds that the waiver of the 01-year period under Section 13B(1) has been obtained by misrepresentation or concealment, the Court may defer the date on which the divorce would take effect, as may be considered appropriate; or may dismiss the Divorce Petition, at whichever stage it is pending, without prejudice to the right of the parties to present a fresh Petition under Section 13B(1) of the HMA after expiration of the 01-year period, on the same or substantially the same facts as may have been pleaded in the Petition so dismissed.
“Such waiver is not to be granted merely for the asking but only upon the court being satisfied that circumstances of “exceptional hardship to the petitioner” and/or “exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent” exist, while also testing the case on the anvil of the considerations set-out in Pooja Gupta”, it concluded.
