The Gujarat High Court has intervened to grant a path to divorce for a couple whose marriage collapsed due to irreconcilable differences over where to establish their life—the husband aimed for the United Kingdom, while the wife was determined to remain in India.
Court Overturns Family Court's "Premature" Ruling
In a significant decision, a bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore quashed an order from Ahmedabad's family court. The lower court had rejected the couple's mutual-consent divorce petition, labeling it as "premature." The family court had also noted the absence of a formal application to waive the mandatory six-month waiting period.
The High Court, however, restored the divorce petition and directed the family court to adjudicate the matter conclusively within a period of six months.
The Core Conflict: A Transcontinental Divide
The couple's union was short-lived. They married on December 9, 2023, but separated just over a month later on January 17, 2024. The split occurred when the husband departed for the UK to pursue further studies. He communicated his intention to settle there permanently and requested his wife to accompany him.
The wife, however, expressed her firm reluctance to leave India. She conveyed that she was settled in Ahmedabad and wished to focus on building her career within the country. This fundamental disagreement on their future country of residence became the insurmountable rift between them.
Legal Journey and the Court's Reasoning
After deciding to part ways amicably, the couple jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on April 1, 2025. They explicitly cited their divergent desires to live in different countries as the reason for the marital breakdown.
The High Court bench observed that there was "no scope of reunion" between the two. They had been living separately for more than a year by the time the petition was filed. The justices noted that the statutory periods—both the one-year separation under Section 13B(1) and the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2)—were effectively over.
"Considering the stand taken by the respective parties, reunion is not possible. Not accepting the request of the parties, in the opinion of this court, will only prolong their agony," the bench stated. It further emphasized that both individuals are young and keen to advance their careers according to their own aspirations.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in addressing pragmatic realities in matrimonial disputes, especially when mutual consent exists but procedural timelines become a hindrance to moving forward.
