Recently, the Delhi High Court held that "exceptional hardship" under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, may extend to a marriage that remained unworkable from its very inception, thereby justifying waiver of the statutory waiting period for filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Court examined whether parties to an interfaith marriage that never progressed into a meaningful marital relationship could be compelled to wait for the statutory period despite overwhelming circumstances demonstrating the futility of reconciliation.
The case stemmed from a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Sections 28 and 29 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, arising out of an interfaith marriage that never progressed into a substantive marital relationship. The parties neither cohabited nor consummated the marriage and faced a lack of familial acceptance, leading them to jointly seek waiver of the statutory one-year waiting period and dissolution of the marriage. However, the Family Court declined the request on the ground that no exceptional hardship was established and that the parties had not attempted reconciliation, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.
The Appellant argued that the Family Court had adopted an unduly restrictive and hyper-technical approach by insisting upon reconciliation efforts in a marriage that had never commenced in substance. The Counsel contended that the finding regarding the absence of exceptional hardship ignored the severe familial estrangement, emotional distress, and the serious medical condition suffered by the appellant's father.
The Court noted while examining Sections 28 and 29 of the Special Marriage Act that these provisions are pari materia to Sections 13B and 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Relying upon the Full Bench decision in Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar, the Court held that statutory timelines may be waived in exceptional cases where the facts justify the exercise of judicial discretion.
The Bench observed that the marriage between the parties was purely notional, lacking cohabitation, consummation, social acceptance, or familial recognition. It further held that the severe estrangement suffered by the appellant, the serious medical condition of his father, and the respondent's apprehension of similar consequences collectively constituted "exceptional hardship" within the meaning of Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation and that insisting upon adherence to the statutory waiting period would only prolong hardship rather than advance the legislative purpose underlying the provision. It therefore concluded that the Family Court had adopted a restrictive and hyper-technical interpretation of the statutory framework.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court's order. The Court granted waiver of the statutory one-year waiting period under Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act and held that the petition under Section 28(1) for divorce by mutual consent was maintainable.
The matter was remanded to the Family Court with directions to proceed expeditiously with the first motion petition without insisting upon the 1-year waiting period.
Case Title: Shahbaz Khan Vs. Komal Shresth
Case No.: MAT. APP. (F.C.) 60/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Hon’ble Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Khalida Akhtar, Adv. Abdullah Akhtar, Adv. Maaz Akhtar
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Shadaan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :