The Gujarat High Court has intervened to grant a path to divorce for a young couple whose marriage collapsed due to an irreconcilable disagreement over which country to call home. The court set aside a family court order that had rejected their mutual consent divorce petition, emphasizing that prolonging the union would only cause further agony for both individuals.
A Marriage Short-Lived, A Conflict Fundamental
The couple tied the knot on December 9, 2023. However, their union lasted barely over a month. They separated on January 17, 2024, when the husband left for the United Kingdom to pursue further studies. The central conflict emerged when he expressed his intention to settle permanently in the UK and asked his wife to join him there.
The wife, however, was settled in Ahmedabad and wished to continue building her career in India. This fundamental disagreement on where to establish their life led to an irrevocable breakdown of the marriage. Recognizing this, they jointly filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on April 1, 2025.
Legal Hurdle: The Cooling-Off Period Dispute
In their petition, the couple clearly stated that reconciliation was impossible due to their divergent life goals concerning country of residence. They followed up with the second motion required for mutual consent divorce on July 24, 2025. This was before the completion of the mandatory six-month "cooling-off" period, which was to end on October 1, 2025.
The Ahmedabad family court rejected their petition in August 2025. It ruled that the six-month waiting period was not a mere formality but a meaningful window for reconciliation. The court also noted the absence of a formal application to waive this cooling-off period.
High Court's Decisive Intervention
Challenging the family court's order, the couple approached the Gujarat High Court. A bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakore heard their plea. The High Court took a pragmatic view of the situation.
The bench observed that the parties had been living separately for over a year by the time they filed the mutual consent petition. Both had unequivocally agreed to divorce, and the statutory periods under the law were nearly over. The court stated, "Perceptibly, there is no scope of reunion between the parties... 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 judges also highlighted that both individuals were young and keen to focus on their respective careers. The Gujarat HC, therefore, quashed the family court's order and restored the divorce petition. It directed the family court to decide the matter afresh and expedite the process, aiming for a resolution within six months.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's evolving approach in cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down due to concrete, irreconcilable differences, and where enforcing a mandatory waiting period serves no purpose other than to delay the inevitable.
