Bombay High Court
Nikita Rupam Katte And Anr vs Nil on 5 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:17195-DB
1 fca 51.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2024
Nikita Rupam Katte and another .. Appellants
Versus
Nil .. Respondent
Shri Abhishek C. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellants.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 05 AUGUST 2024.
FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Heard.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court,
Aurangabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 12 of 2024, which was
filed U/Sec. 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred as
to the 'Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience).
3. Appellants jointly filed application U/Sec. 14 of the Act
seeking waiver of period of one year for filing petition U/Sec. 13-B
of the Act for dissolution of marriage. Their marriage was
solemnized on 28.11.2023. They filed application U/Sec. 14 of the
Act along with petition U/Sec. 13-B on 19.01.2024, before Family
Court, Aurangabad. Application was rejected by the impugned
judgment and order.
2 fca 51.24
4. Application has been rejected on the ground that as no
case was made out showing extraordinary hardship as
contemplated by the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The
grounds pressed into service for waiver of one year period were
found to be usual or common.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that couple
cohabited only for 24 days and have been residing separately
from 24.12.2023, they are of marriageable age and are having
strong differences and unable to wait for statutory period to seek
dissolution of marriage. It is further contended that even the
marriage has not been consummated. He relies on the judgment
of the Karnataka High Court dated 10 August 2023 in Misc.
First Appeal No. 3125 of 2023, judgment dated 06.08.2021
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of
Shivani Yadav Vs. Amit Yadav in F.A.O. No. 658 of 2021 and
judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court at Nagpur in the matter of Dipti Vinay Rajwani Vs.
Vinajy Kanhaiyalal Rajwani in F. C. A. No. 54 of 2018.
6. We have gone through the contents of the application filed
U/Sec. 14 of the Act. The couple appears to have stayed together
for 24 days only. They are working at different places and
residing separately from 24.12.2023. They are under obligation
to make out a case of exceptional hardship or exceptional
depravity as contemplated by Sec. 14(1) of the Act. We do not
find any such case is made out from the contents of the
3 fca 51.24
application. Following circumstances which are pressed into
service would fall short to grant relief :
(i) Marriage was not consummated,
(ii) Cohabitation was of 24 days only,
(iii) Both applicants are of marriageable age,
(iv) Attempts of conciliation have failed,
(v) Likely to face mental agony and prejudice to future
life/career, if they are dragged to litigation,
(vi) They are working at different places and they are separate
since 24.12.2023.
7. We find no perversity or illegality in rejecting application.
All aspects are dealt with by the learned Judge, Family Court by
assigning reasons. Appellants are unable to show any ground to
interfere with the discretion exercised by the Judge, Family
court. We are of the considered view that no interference is
called for in the impugned order.
8. The judgments cited by the appellants before us were
rightly considered by the Judge, Family Court. The facts of cited
judgments are distinguishable. The mandatory requirement of
Section 14(1) of the Act for exercising jurisdiction has not been
dealt with by the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court.
In the matter of Shivani Yadav Vs. Amit Yadav (supra), the
Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with exceptional
circumstance of couple having cohabited for 02 days and they
were below 24 years of age. In that case unprecedented situation
4 fca 51.24
of Covid - 19 was prevailing when they presented application
before the Family Court. Hence we are not persuaded by the
judgment in the matter of Shivani Yadav Vs. Amit Yadav
(supra).
9. In the matter of Dipti Vinay Rajwani Vs. Vinajy
Kanhaiyalal Rajwani (supra), application was filed by wife for
waiver of period of one year and it was rejected without even
issuing notice to her husband. In the present matter, it was joint
application by the appellants. We do not find that judgment
passed in the matter of Dipti Vinay Rajwani Vs. Vinajy
Kanhaiyalal Rajwani (supra) is of binding precedent. It is not
made applicable to the case in hand.
10. We have all sympathies for the appellants especially when
they are of marriageable age, residing separately and working at
different places. Already more than 7 months are over since the
date of the marriage. They can file a petition U/Sec. 13-B of the
Act surely within 4 and half months. Considering this aspect of
the matter, we are not inclined to interfere.
11. Family Court appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
