One-Year Separation Not Mandatory for Mutual Consent Divorce: Delhi High Court’s Landmark Ruling Explained
Introduction
In a progressive and people-centric judgment, the Delhi High Court has clarified that completion of one year of separation is not mandatory for filing a divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This ruling marks a significant shift in matrimonial jurisprudence, emphasizing individual autonomy, dignity, and practical justice over rigid statutory timelines.
Court: Delhi High Court (Full Bench)
Case: x v. y 2025 DHC: 11467 FB
Decision Date: 17 December 2025
Background of the Case
The issue arose due to conflicting judicial views on whether parties must mandatorily complete one year of separation before filing the first motion for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
An earlier Delhi High Court judgment (Sankalp Singh v. Prarthana Chandra) allowed early filing but insisted that the divorce decree could only take effect after completion of one year. This interpretation was referred to a Full Bench for authoritative clarification.
Key Legal Questions Before the Court
- Can a mutual consent divorce petition be filed before completing one year of separation?
- If yes, can the six-month cooling-off period between the first and second motion also be waived even if one year of separation is not completed?
Delhi High Court’s Key Findings
One-Year Separation Period Is Not Mandatory
The Court held that the one-year separation requirement under Section 13B(1) is not absolute and can be waived by invoking the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in cases of:
- Exceptional hardship, or
- Exceptional depravity
Section 13B Is Not a Complete Code
Rejecting earlier restrictive interpretations, the Court ruled that Section 13B is subject to other provisions of the Act, especially Section 14. Several earlier single-judge decisions holding otherwise were expressly overruled .
Six-Month Cooling-Off Period Can Also Be Waived
Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar), the Court reiterated that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) is directory, not mandatory.
Importantly, the Court clarified that:
- Waiver of one year under Section 13B(1) and
- Waiver of six months under Section 13B(2)
are independent judicial discretions, and waiver of one does not bar waiver of the other .
Immediate Divorce Decree Is Permissible
The Court decisively held that once both timelines are waived, and the court is satisfied regarding:
- Free and informed consent,
- Absence of coercion,
- No possibility of reconciliation, and
- Genuine settlement between parties,
the divorce decree can be granted immediately, without waiting for completion of one year of separation .
Constitutional Perspective
The Court emphasized that forcing parties to remain in a broken marriage violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees:
- Personal liberty
- Dignity
- Decisional autonomy
In a powerful observation, the Court stated that law must not push unwilling spouses “not into marital bliss, but into a matrimonial abyss” .
Practical Impact of the Judgment
Faster mutual consent divorces Relief for couples in dead or short-lived marriages Reduced unnecessary litigation and emotional trauma Strengthened focus on consent rather than technical timelines
Conclusion
This judgment is a milestone in Indian family law, aligning statutory interpretation with constitutional values and modern social realities. It sends a clear message that marriage survives on consent—and so does divorce by consent.
Courts are now empowered to act with sensitivity, discretion, and realism, ensuring that law becomes a tool for resolution, not suffering.
Comments
Post a Comment