New Delhi, Dec 17 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court clarified on Wednesday that judicial bodies are not obligated to simply delay a divorce by mutual consent based on statutory timelines. In suitable situations, both the one-year separation condition and the six-month cooling-off period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, may be waived, as per the ruling from a Full Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, and Renu Bhatnagar.

Responding to a reference, the Justice Chawla-led Bench elucidated the legal stance on timelines under Section 13B of the HMA regarding divorce by mutual consent. The reference was prompted by conflicting opinions on whether parties could file and pursue a petition for divorce before completing the one-year separation as specified in Section 13B(1), and whether the subsequent six-month cooling-off duration under Section 13B(2) could also be waived.

In its judgement, the Delhi High Court stated that the one-year separation requirement under Section 13B(1) can be waived using the proviso to Section 14(1) of the HMA in instances of “exceptional hardship” or “exceptional depravity”. The court observed, “The statutory period of one year specified under Section 13B(1) of the HMA as a prerequisite for the initial motion can be waived by applying the proviso to Section 14(1) of the HMA.”

The Bench further asserted that the waiver of the one-year separation period does not prevent the waiver of the six-month cooling-off time under Section 13B(2). The court remarked, “Consideration of waiver for the one-year period under Section 13B(1) and the six-month period under Section 13B(2) should be independent of one another.”

The court rejected the claim that judicial authorities must automatically postpone the effectiveness of a divorce decree until the one-year separation is fulfilled. It noted that once a court is convinced of the existence of exceptional circumstances and genuine consent, there is “no justification whatsoever” to delay the decree until the one-year separation is completed.

“Once spouses mutually decide to terminate their marriage, the law should not intrude upon their decisional autonomy,” the ruling emphasized, indicating that compelling parties to remain in an unfulfilling marriage could violate their dignity, privacy, and autonomy as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Full Bench also overturned previous single-judge decisions of the Delhi High Court that had regarded Section 13B as a “complete code” and had refused to apply the proviso to Section 14(1) in mutual consent divorces. However, it warned that the waiver of the one-year period under Section 13B(1) and the six-month period under Section 13B(2) of the HMA should not be granted merely upon request; courts are required to be thoroughly convinced of the parties’ free and informed consent, the absence of coercion, and the presence of exceptional circumstances.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court affirmed that courts are authorized to waive both statutory periods, issue a divorce immediately, and are not legally obligated to postpone the decree, unless it is determined that consent was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment.