# Arpit Garg v. Ekta Gupta

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 706 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arpit-garg-v-ekta-gupta-53908
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

in law and on facts in refusing to grant leave u/s
14(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby
dismissing joint application of parties seeking
permission to present a petition for divorce by
mutual consent before the expiry of one year
from the date of marriage, on the ground of
alleged exceptional hardship or depravity.

Headnotes
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 14(1) -
Appellant - husband and respondent -
wife, whose marriage was solemnized on
3rd March 2025, jointly moved application
before Family Court seeking leave to file
petition for divorce by mutual consent
before completion of one year from the
date of marriage, asserting that marriage
had irretrievably broken down and that
exceptional hardship was being suffered
by
appellant
owing
to
pendency
of
criminal
proceedings
instituted
by
respondent, which also hindered his plans
to travel abroad - Family Court, by
judgment
dated
13th
August
2025,
dismissed the said application, holding
that statutory requirement of one year's
duration could not be waived in absence
of
proof
of
exceptional
hardship
or
depravity
-
Aggrieved,
the
appellant
preferred First Appeal contending that
Family Court failed to appreciate the facts
and
law
in
their
true
perspective,
particularly in light of coordinate Bench
judgment in Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav
(infra), whereas respondent supported
appellant's case, both parties having
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mutually
agreed
to
dissolution
of
marriage.

Held: It is evident that parties have agreed to
jointly petition for divorce by mutual consent
within a short while of marriage, taken place on
3rd March, 2025, neither party has claimed
exceptional depravity - Their conduct of being
able to agree with each other to jointly petition
for divorce by mutual consent militates against
any or both of them alleging exceptional
hardship - Intention of legislature is clear
inasmuch as, marriage must be given a chance -
Of all the provisions in Act for separation of
parties, they are subject to section 14 - There
can be cases of exceptional hardship and
depravity, where one spouse is trying to take
advantage of marriage happened - Here, both
parties have joined and they have said in their
joint petition, they are living separately - It was
submitted that the parties stand separated from
21st March, 2025 and they stayed together for
less than 20 days - In Angad Soni (infra), the
coordinate Bench did not render independent
determination but relied on precedents of
various High Courts - No reason is made out to
warrant interference with impugned judgment,
which is accordingly affirmed, and appeal is
dismissed. [Paras 5 to 7] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav, First Appeal
Defective No. 115 of 2025, Judgment
dated 29.05.2025 - followed

List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

List of Keywords
Joint application; File and maintain joint petition
for divorce by mutual consent; Section 14(1) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Leave ought to have
been granted; Exceptional hardship; Exceptional
depravity; Criminal complaint; Criminal case is
pending; Proceed abroad; Coordinate Bench;
Expiry of period of one year since the date of
marriage; Jointly petition for divorce by mutual
consent; Intention of legislature; Marriage must
be given a chance; Provisions in the Act for
separation of the parties; Living separately;
Impugned judgment confirmed.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: (First Appeal No. -
706 of 2025)
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
13.08.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ashish Gupta

Adv. for the Respondent:

## Text

9 All. Arpit Garg Vs. Ekta Gupta
281
Universal Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 364] but
distinguished on its own facts."

22. It is apparent from the law laid down
by the Apex Court in EXL Careers &
Another(supra) that where the court has no
jurisdiction, then plaint has to be returned in
view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10
CPC to enable the plaintiff to present it
before
the
court
having
competent
jurisdiction. It is also apparent that the court
of appeal or revision may also direct, after
setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the
return of the plaint for presenting it before the
court of competent jurisdiction. It is clear that
the trial court has committed legal error in
dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction
and not returning the plaint to the plaintiff, to
enable him to present it before the court of
competent jurisdiction.

23. In view of these facts, it will be
appropriate that after setting aside the
impugned judgment and decree, the plaint
is returned to the plaintiff to enable him to
present it before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment and
decree of the trial court in O.S No.801 of
2007 dated 13.02.2023, is set aside.

25. The trial court is directed to return
the original plaint to the plaintiff, in
accordance with law. The parties shall bear
their respective costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 281
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

First Appeal No. 706 of 2025

Arpit Garg ...Appellant
Versus
Ekta Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashish Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Family Court erred
in law and on facts in refusing to grant leave u/s
14(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby
dismissing joint application of parties seeking
permission to present a petition for divorce by
mutual consent before the expiry of one year
from the date of marriage, on the ground of
alleged exceptional hardship or depravity.

Headnotes
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 14(1) -
Appellant - husband and respondent -
wife, whose marriage was solemnized on
3rd March 2025, jointly moved application
before Family Court seeking leave to file
petition for divorce by mutual consent
before completion of one year from the
date of marriage, asserting that marriage
had irretrievably broken down and that
exceptional hardship was being suffered
by
appellant
owing
to
pendency
of
criminal
proceedings
instituted
by
respondent, which also hindered his plans
to travel abroad - Family Court, by
judgment
dated
13th
August
2025,
dismissed the said application, holding
that statutory requirement of one year's
duration could not be waived in absence
of
proof
of
exceptional
hardship
or
depravity
-
Aggrieved,
the
appellant
preferred First Appeal contending that
Family Court failed to appreciate the facts
and
law
in
their
true
perspective,
particularly in light of coordinate Bench
judgment in Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav
(infra), whereas respondent supported
appellant's case, both parties having
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mutually
agreed
to
dissolution
of
marriage.

Held: It is evident that parties have agreed to
jointly petition for divorce by mutual consent
within a short while of marriage, taken place on
3rd March, 2025, neither party has claimed
exceptional depravity - Their conduct of being
able to agree with each other to jointly petition
for divorce by mutual consent militates against
any or both of them alleging exceptional
hardship - Intention of legislature is clear
inasmuch as, marriage must be given a chance -
Of all the provisions in Act for separation of
parties, they are subject to section 14 - There
can be cases of exceptional hardship and
depravity, where one spouse is trying to take
advantage of marriage happened - Here, both
parties have joined and they have said in their
joint petition, they are living separately - It was
submitted that the parties stand separated from
21st March, 2025 and they stayed together for
less than 20 days - In Angad Soni (infra), the
coordinate Bench did not render independent
determination but relied on precedents of
various High Courts - No reason is made out to
warrant interference with impugned judgment,
which is accordingly affirmed, and appeal is
dismissed. [Paras 5 to 7] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav, First Appeal
Defective No. 115 of 2025, Judgment
dated 29.05.2025 - followed

List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

List of Keywords
Joint application; File and maintain joint petition
for divorce by mutual consent; Section 14(1) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Leave ought to have
been granted; Exceptional hardship; Exceptional
depravity; Criminal complaint; Criminal case is
pending; Proceed abroad; Coordinate Bench;
Expiry of period of one year since the date of
marriage; Jointly petition for divorce by mutual
consent; Intention of legislature; Marriage must
be given a chance; Provisions in the Act for
separation of the parties; Living separately;
Impugned judgment confirmed.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: (First Appeal No. -
706 of 2025)
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
13.08.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ashish Gupta

Adv. for the Respondent:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned advocate
appears on behalf of appellant-husband. He
submits,
his
client
is
aggrieved
by
judgement
dated
13th
August,
2025
dismissing joint application made by the
parties for allowing them to file and
maintain joint petition for divorce by
mutual
consent.
Mr.
Manoj
Kumar
Gautam, learned advocate appears on
behalf of respondent. He submits, his client
supports appellant.

2. Mr. Gupta submits, the joint
application was made under section 14(1)
in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Leave ought
to have been granted by the Family Court.
It erred on facts as well as in law, to
dismiss the application.

3 He submits, exceptional hardship is
being suffered by his client. Firstly,
because
respondent
lodged
criminal
complaint, pursuant to which criminal case
is pending. Furthermore, his client wants to
proceed abroad and this litigation prevents
him.

4. He relies on judgement dated 29th
May, 2025 of coordinate Bench in First
Appeal Defective no. 115 of 2025 (Angad
Soni Vs. Arpita Yadav). He submits, it
was made on similar, if not same facts.
Relied upon paragraph 14 is reproduced
below.
9 All. Smt. Varsha Sharma @ Suman Vs. Ajay Sharma & Anr.
283

"14. After going through the
factual as well as legal aspect of the
matter, it is clear that case of the appellant
is
also
covered
with
the
aforesaid
judgements passed by various High
Courts. The proviso to Section 14 (1) of the
Act, 1955 is an exception to the necessity
for expiration of a period of one year since
the date of marriage to enable a party to
file a petition for divorce. Once an
application under Section 14 (1) of the Act,
1955 is filed before the court, certainly the
court has to see whether there is
exceptional hardship to the petitioner or
exceptional depravity on the part of the
respondent. In the present case, it is borne
out of the record that criminal cases have
been filed by the respondent and there is no
chance
that
marriage
will
subsist.
Therefore, the proviso to Section 14(1) of
the Act, 1955 is to be invoked, so that the
parties may get divorce and lead their
peaceful life. Both the parties have
mutually filed the divorce petition along
with an application under Section 14(1) of
the
Act,
1955,
therefore,
the
said
application is ought to be allowed."

(emphasis supplied)

5. We have no hesitation to say that
where the parties have agreed to jointly
petition for divorce by mutual consent
within a short while of the marriage, taken
place on 3rd March, 2025, neither party has
claimed exceptional depravity. We go
further to say that their conduct of being
able to agree with each other to jointly
petition for divorce by mutual consent
militates against any or both of them
alleging exceptional hardship. Intention of
the legislature is clear inasmuch as, the
marriage must be given a chance. Of all the
provisions in the Act for separation of the
parties, they are subject to section 14.
There can be cases of exceptional hardship
and depravity, where one spouse is trying
to
take
advantage
of
the
marriage
happened. Here, both parties have joined
and they have said in their joint petition,
they are living separately. On query Mr.
Gupta submits, the parties stand separated
from 21st March, 2025. It follows, they
stayed together for less than 20 days.

6. We see that in Angad Soni (supra)
coordinate
Bench
did
not
take
an
independent view but found the case
covered by judgements passed by various
High Courts. On facts and in the
circumstances of present case, we have
taken a view.

7. We do not find reason to interfere
with impugned judgement. It is confirmed.
The appeal is dismissed. We still hope
parties, in the time required before they can
file for divorce by mutual consent, will get
back together.

8. The appeal is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 283
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 812 of 2022

Smt. Varsha Sharma @ Suman ...Appellant
Versus
Ajay Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Durga Prasad Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vidit Narayan Mishra