Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Savanam Giridhar Reddy vs Smt.Savanam Pavani on 17 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.29 of 2022
ORDER:-
The petitioner and the respondent are husband and
wife, who are married according to Hindu Rites and Customs
under the Hindu Marriage Act on 31.05.2021. The marriage is
said to have run into trouble and the disputes between the
petitioner and the respondent are said to have been settled on
13.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent
have approached the Family Court, Guntur by way of F.C.O.P,
for grant of divorce, by way of mutual consent. As the
mandatory period of one year before presentation of the
application for divorce, under Section 14 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, had not been completed, the petitioner moved
I.A.No.636 of 2021 under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the
ground of exceptional hardship to the petitioner. The said
ground of exceptional hardship is said to be that all disputes
including a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner have
been settled and the petitioner and the respondent need to get
on with life.
2. This application was dismissed by the trial Court
on 03.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision
Petition.
3. Heard Sri Kesana Rama Kotewara Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
4. The institution of marriage, as far as Hindus are
concerned, is a sacrament. The legislature, keeping in view
this fact, has placed certain restrictions for moving a Court for
dissolution of such marriages. Section 14 stipulates that no
petition for divorce can be presented within one year of
marriage. Section 13 B of the Act stipulates that a petition for
divorce by mutual consent can be filed only after the couple
had separated and were leaving separately for a period of one
year or more.
5. The legislature while stipulating a minimum period
of one year for presentation of a petition for divorce under
Section 14 of the Act had also incorporated a proviso which
permits an application for divorce, to be made, with the leave
of the Court, where exceptional hardship to the petitioner or
exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent is made
out before the Court.
6. The words 'exceptional hardship' and 'exceptional
depravity' make it clear that the bar for obtaining the leave of
the Court has been set very high. Such leave can be granted
only where a petitioner is able to show that the petitioner
would face exceptional hardship in continuing the marriage or
where the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the
respondent has behaved with such exceptional depravity that
continuation of the marriage would be extremely detrimental
to the petitioner.
7. In the present case, the petitioner seeks leave of
the Court to file a petition for divorce within a few months
after the marriage on the ground of exceptional hardship. It is
the case of the petitioner, before the trial Court, that there
were various disputes including a criminal complaint filed
against the petitioner and the same had been resolved. The
petitioner contends that any further delay in grant of divorce
would result in loss of enjoyment of life and mar their future
prospects. In my view, such a ground cannot be treated as a
case of exceptional hardship.
8. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
Family Court was right in dismissing the application filed by
the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil
Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 17-01-2022
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.29 of 2022
Date : 17.01.2022
RJS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
C.R.P.No.29 of 2022
Between:
Savanam Giridhar Reddy,
S/o.Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 30 years, Occ: Private Employment,
R/o.USA, 104 E Elizabeth Avenue, Linden, New Jersey, 07036, and
Permanent Address of R/o.H.No.247, 23rd Ward, Mummamvaripalem,
Bapatla Town, Guntur District, represented by his GPA holder and his
father Savanam Srinivasa Reddy, R/o.H.No.247, 23rd Ward,
Maummamvaripalem, Bapatla Town, Guntur District.
... Petitioner
And
$ Smt.Savanam Pavani, W/o.Savanam Giridhar Reddy and D/o.Namala
Appi Reddy, age 28 years, Occ: House Made, R/o.Flat No.302, Vijaya
Enclave, 4th line, Bhagyanagar colony, Gujjanagundla, Guntur City,
Guntur District.
... Respondent
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 17-01-2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ C.R.P.No.29 of 2022
% Dated: 17-01-2022
Savanam Giridhar Reddy,
S/o.Srinivasa Reddy, aged about 30 years, Occ: Private Employment,
R/o.USA, 104 E Elizabeth Avenue, Linden, New Jersey, 07036, and
Permanent Address of R/o.H.No.247, 23rd Ward, Mummamvaripalem,
Bapatla Town, Guntur District, represented by his GPA holder and his
father Savanam Srinivasa Reddy, R/o.H.No.247, 23rd Ward,
Maummamvaripalem, Bapatla Town, Guntur District.
... Petitioner
And
$ Smt.Savanam Pavani, W/o.Savanam Giridhar Reddy and D/o.Namala
Appi Reddy, age 28 years, Occ: House Made, R/o.Flat No.302, Vijaya
Enclave, 4th line, Bhagyanagar colony, Gujjanagundla, Guntur City,
Guntur District.
... Respondent
! Counsel for petitioner : Kesana Rama Koteswara Rao
^Counsel for Respondent : --
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
