HC DB: Mere Registration of Marriage does not negate Marital Hardship, Read Judgment

In a significant intervention on the limits of matrimonial formalism, the Delhi High Court stepped in to examine whether a couple trapped in a marriage that never truly began could be compelled to wait out statutory timelines, as it scrutinised the Family Court’s refusal to allow an early mutual consent divorce despite complete non-cohabitation and cross-border separation.

The controversy began when a recently married couple, whose union was solemnised in March 2025, approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent within seven months of the wedding. The parties had never lived together, never consummated the marriage, and continued to reside separately, one in India and the other in Canada, owing to irreconcilable differences discovered immediately after marriage.

Since the law ordinarily bars divorce petitions within one year of marriage, they sought the court’s permission under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing exceptional hardship. The Family Court, however, declined relief, reasoning that no such hardship was made out and that the parties had failed to make sincere efforts to save the marriage.

Reversing the Family Court’s approach, the High Court held that insisting on continuation of a marriage that exists only on paper defeats the very purpose of matrimonial law. The Bench observed that where a marriage has never been acted upon through cohabitation, compelling parties to remain legally bound serves no social or legal purpose, noting that “insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation.” 

The Court rejected the view that registration of marriage diluted claims of hardship, clarifying that registration is a statutory formality and not proof of marital harmony. Concluding that the case clearly disclosed “exceptional hardship” with no possibility of reconciliation, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order, granted leave to file the mutual consent divorce petition without waiting for one year, and directed expeditious proceedings.

Case Title: X Vs. Y

Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025

Coram: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Abhishek Wadhwa, Somyaa Gurung, Saurabh Yadav

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Dhiraj Bhiduri

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com