MALAY MARUT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The appellant herein filed a Matrimonial Suit against the respondent/wife seeking divorce. The matter went on at the final hearing. It was heard ex parte but the learned court below was pleased to dismiss the Suit with the observation that the record clearly showed that this Suit was filed within one year of marriage of the parties but there is no application in the record from the side of the petitioner i.e., the present appellant for grant of leave under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act by showing that there was exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent for filing the Suit within one year of the marriage.
(2.) On the factual scenario there is no dispute that the marriage between the parties was held on 12th December, 2009 and the present appellant filed the Matrimonial Suit for divorce on 22.03.2010. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the bar created under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act could not be so rigidly construed so as to dismiss the Suit. It is contended that the time factor to be considered on the part of the learned court below was the date of the hearing and not the presentation of the Suit itself. The learned Advocate relying on a decision reported in (2006) 1 SCC 141 (Sudhir G. Angur & Ors. Vs. M. SAnjeev & Ors.) submits that the court is bound to take notice of the change in the law and is bound to administer the law as it was when the Suit came up for hearing. In the instant case we do not find any sort of change in the law but simply change in the fact-situation due to passage of time when the suit came to be dismissed Ex parte in terms of the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 from the date of the presentation of the Application for divorce on 22.03.2010. So, we find that the decision relied on by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has no manner of application in the case before us.
(3.) The other decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant is the case of Indumathi Vs. Krishnamurthy, reported in 1999(1) CTC 210 = (1998) IIIMLJ 435, where the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the provision of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act indicates that the provision requiring intervention of one year between the date of marriage and the date of presentation of petition for divorce are not that mandatory and further came to hold that the provisions are directory and requires substantial compliance only. With respect, we are unable to accept that proposition of law in view of the express provision contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act which starts with a non-obstante clause.;