Waiver of Statutory Timelines in Mutual Consent Divorce: Delhi High Court Clarifies the Law
- rit arora
- Dec 28, 2025
- 2 min read
By Lex Horizon
In a significant and progressive ruling, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has authoritatively clarified the law relating to divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly on whether statutory timelines can be relaxed by courts.
The reference arose due to conflicting judicial opinions on whether parties seeking divorce by mutual consent must strictly complete one year of separation before filing the first motion under Section 13B(1), and whether courts can waive this requirement by invoking the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act.
Earlier decisions had treated Section 13B as a “complete code”, thereby disallowing any waiver of the one-year separation period. This created practical hardship for couples trapped in irretrievably broken marriages, despite mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage.
Key Issues Considered
The Court examined, inter alia:
Whether a petition under Section 13B(1) can be entertained before completion of one year of separation.
Whether courts can waive not only the one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) but also the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2).
Whether, after such waiver, the court must still postpone the effective date of divorce until one year of separation is completed.
Findings and Legal Position
The High Court answered these questions decisively and held that:
The one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) is not inflexible. Courts may, in appropriate cases, permit filing of the first motion before completion of one year by invoking the proviso to Section 14(1), where exceptional hardship or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Section 13B is not a complete code. Since Section 13B(1) begins with the phrase “subject to the provisions of this Act”, it necessarily yields to Section 14(1).
Both timelines are capable of waiver. The Court held that waiver of the one-year separation period and waiver of the six-month cooling-off period are distinct but independent powers, and waiver of one does not bar waiver of the other.
Divorce decree need not be deferred. If the court is satisfied about free consent, absence of coercion, and the existence of exceptional circumstances, it may grant an immediate decree of divorce, without waiting for completion of the one-year period.
Importantly, the Court observed that forcing unwilling parties to remain legally bound serves no societal or constitutional purpose, and may in fact violate their dignity, autonomy, and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Practical Impact
This judgment marks a clear shift towards a rights-based and realistic approach in matrimonial jurisprudence. It empowers Family Courts and High Courts to:
Prevent unnecessary prolongation of dead marriages,
Reduce emotional and psychological hardship,
Respect decisional autonomy of consenting adults.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that such waivers should not be granted mechanically and must be tested on factors such as voluntariness, maturity of decision, absence of coercion, and impossibility of reconciliation.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court’s ruling strikes a careful balance between the sanctity of marriage and the right to exit an unworkable marital relationship with dignity. It reinforces the principle that law must evolve with social realities and should not become an instrument of compulsion where consent is clear and informed.
Find the judgment here
