Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) This is an appeal against the order passed on 30.7.81 by Shri M.A. Khan, ADJ. declining the application of the husband appellant herein, u/s 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the 'Act'). It was held that the husband has not been able to make out any ground of exceptional hardship so as to entitle him to move the petition for dissolubefore the expiry of one year from the date of marriage.
(2) inspire of service of 'actual date notice' of this appeal, respondent-wife has not appeared. I have heard Mr, Chug, counsel for the appellant, and with his assistance, gone through the record.
(3) The parties were married in accordance with the Hindu rites on 14.3.81. The husband's case is that after 3 days of the marriage, the wife refused to have any sexual intercource with him. His further grievance is that she remained absent from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause or excuse. The working hours, of the wife, who is a teacher, are 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. but she invariably used to return home at about 7.00 p.m. She refused to give any reagon to the husband for being late. In support of the averment that he was suffering exceptional hardship, it was stated in the application u/s 14 of the Act that the wife has deserted him since 7.5.81. Prior to that, according to the husband, his wife had left the matrimonial house on a number of occasions also without any reasonable cause or excuse.
(4) Prior to this marriage, it is stated she was living in a rented premises in South Extension. She did not vacate these premises. At present, she is living there. On these grounds, the husband sought leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of one year of the marriage.
(5) As noticed above, trial court has dismissed the application. I see no reason to differ. I agree with the finding that in the present case, ground of exceptional hardship has not been made out. The period of one year provided in S. 14 has been laid down by the legislature with a specific purpose. It aims at ensuring a fair trial being given to every marriage. It is expected that in a case where the parties are not getting on weli immediately after the marriage or they have not been able to resolve their differences resulting in their living apart, their near relations and friends may be able to persuade them to bury the hatchet. The emphasis seems to be on reconciliation. Hardship which entitles a spouse to move an application u/s 14 of the Act has got to be exceptional. In the present case, the averments of the husband merely show that the parties have not been able to live together immediately after the marriage.