Delhi High Court Waives 1-Year Waiting Period For Divorce Under Special Marriage Act

Cause Title: SK v. KS

Background

The Delhi High Court has recently made a significant ruling regarding the Special Marriage Act, 1954, specifically concerning the one-year waiting period for filing a divorce petition. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar allowed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order that rejected his plea seeking a waiver of the statutory period prescribed under Section 29 read with Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that in cases where a marriage is only notional, has never been consummated, and has received no social or familial acceptance, insisting on the statutory waiting period would serve no meaningful purpose. The case in question involved a couple belonging to different faiths who had married under the Special Marriage Act on August 25, 2025. The disclosure of the marriage led to severe familial consequences, including the husband's father allegedly collapsing from shock and being diagnosed with liver failure, while the respondent-wife feared similar repercussions from her own family and therefore concealed the marriage from them.

Decision

Setting aside the Family Court's order, the High Court held that the statutory timelines under Sections 28 and 29 of the Special Marriage Act are intended to protect the institution of marriage but also confer discretion upon courts to relax such requirements in appropriate cases. The Bench noted that the present case clearly disclosed “exceptional hardship” within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act. The Court stated that compelling the parties to wait for one year would only prolong their agony and run contrary to the object of the statute.

Key Points

• The Delhi High Court has the discretion to waive the one-year waiting period for filing a divorce petition under the Special Marriage Act in exceptional circumstances.
• The Court considered the case to be one of “exceptional hardship” due to the severe familial consequences faced by the couple.
• The marriage was deemed notional, without cohabitation, consummation, or social and familial recognition, and there were no children born out of the wedlock.
• The parties had not resided together and were in agreement regarding the dissolution of the marriage.

Significance

The ruling signifies the Court's willingness to consider the unique circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion to waive the statutory waiting period when it serves no meaningful purpose. This decision may have implications for future cases involving the Special Marriage Act, particularly in situations where the marriage is notional or has not been consummated, and the parties are facing exceptional hardship.