Law cannot prolong a Marriage that never Existed in Substance, says HC while Waiving Cooling-Off Period in mutual divorce case

Recently, the Delhi High Court was confronted with a pressing question, should the law compel parties to remain bound by time when the marriage itself never truly began? The proceedings brought into sharp focus the delicate balance under the Hindu Marriage Act between the legislative aim of encouraging reconciliation and the Court’s duty to prevent undue hardship, particularly where the relationship has broken down almost at its inception.

The controversy began when a recently married couple, who cohabited for only a few days and whose marriage remained unconsummated, chose to part ways and formalised their decision through a mutual settlement. Despite their clear intent to dissolve the marriage and absence of any possibility of reconciliation, the Family Court declined to waive the statutory one-year period, treating it as a rigid prerequisite. Challenging this approach, the parties argued that the requirement, though ordinarily mandatory, is not absolute and can be relaxed in cases of exceptional hardship. They contended that prolonging a marriage that had broken down almost immediately would serve no constructive purpose and would instead deepen personal hardship.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined the statutory framework and the factual matrix, ultimately finding the case fit for invoking the exception. The Court emphasised that the absence of cohabitation, lack of consummation, and immediate separation were not mere formalities but indicators that the marital bond had never truly developed. Observing that “the matrimonial relationship between the parties never took shape in any meaningful sense,” the Bench further noted that insisting on the waiting period would “only prolong a marriage that exists merely in law and not in substance”. 

Emphasising that courts must be alive to real-life circumstances rather than mechanical application of timelines, the Bench set aside the Family Court’s order, granted waiver of the statutory period, and directed expeditious consideration of the mutual divorce proceedings.

Case Title: X Vs. Y

Case No.: Mat.App.(F.C.) 72/2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Advocate for the Appellants: Adv. Isha Khanna,

Advocate for the Respondent: In person

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com