Introduction:

In the case titled Arpit Garg v. Ekta Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. – 706 of 2025], the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of whether a couple could obtain a mutual divorce within six months of marriage. The parties had solemnized their marriage on 3rd March, 2025, and began living separately from 21st March, 2025. Shortly thereafter, they jointly filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. The Family Court rejected their application on 13th August, 2025, observing that the petition was premature and there was no exceptional depravity or hardship demonstrated by either party. The appellant-husband challenged this order, arguing that his exceptional hardship arose from being unable to proceed abroad due to ongoing litigation.

Arguments:

The appellant-husband contended that mutual consent should be granted for divorce as his ability to pursue professional opportunities abroad was being adversely affected by the pending matrimonial dispute. He argued that this constituted exceptional hardship and warranted the court’s intervention to expedite the process of dissolution. The respondent-wife supported the mutual divorce petition but did not provide specific evidence of exceptional depravity or hardship. The Family Court had previously held that the parties had lived separately for only a few weeks after marriage and that the legislative intent behind Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act required marriages to be given a chance before permitting dissolution on mutual consent.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent emphasized that mere inability to pursue personal or professional objectives does not qualify as exceptional hardship under the law. The lack of any allegations of cruelty, depravity, or other exceptional circumstances reinforced the view that the short duration of the marriage warranted the court giving the couple an opportunity to reconcile. The Family Court’s position, supported by statutory interpretation, emphasized that mutual consent divorce is contingent upon conditions that reflect a minimum period of cohabitation or extraordinary circumstances, which were absent in this case.

Judgment:

The bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order. The Court observed that the parties’ joint petition for mutual divorce so soon after marriage demonstrated a readiness to separate rather than a claim of exceptional hardship or depravity. The bench highlighted that the intention of the legislature is to provide spouses the opportunity to salvage the marriage unless exceptional circumstances exist. Since no such circumstances were shown, the early petition for mutual divorce was not permissible. The Court also expressed hope that the parties may reconsider their decision and attempt reconciliation until the legally permissible period for filing mutual divorce is completed. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that mutual consent divorce within six months of marriage requires evidence of extraordinary hardship or depravity, which was absent in the present matter.