Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order on Mutual Consent Divorce, Affirms One-Year Separation Rule

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 128 | 2026:CGHC:537-DB

January 06, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside an order of the Family Court in Bilaspur that had rejected a couple’s plea for divorce by mutual consent on the ground that it was filed too early.

In its judgment dated January 6, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal allowed the appeal filed by Ankur David and his wife, Roli Ambesh, both Christians, who had married on June 25, 2025, at Disciples of Christ Church in Bilaspur.

According to the case record, the couple began living separately from July 2025 due to mutual differences. They jointly approached the Family Court on November 4, 2025, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, which provides for divorce by mutual consent. However, the Family Court dismissed their application, holding that the law requires spouses to live separately for at least two years before filing such a petition.

Challenging this decision, the appellants argued that the two-year requirement under Section 10A had already been declared unconstitutional by the Kerala High Court in the landmark case of Saumya Ann Thomas v Union of India. In that ruling, the Kerala High Court held that the mandatory two-year separation period was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. To preserve the provision, the court read down the period from two years to one year.

The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that this view had also been followed by the Karnataka High Court in Shiv Kumar v Union of India and by the Bombay High Court in Lancy Leo Mendonka v Union of India.

Importantly, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that a High Court’s declaration on the constitutional validity of a parliamentary law has effect throughout India, subject to the applicability of the statute. In light of this principle, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the Family Court in Bilaspur ought to have followed the Kerala High Court’s decision and treated the required separation period as one year, not two.

The Bench therefore set aside the Family Court’s order, observing that it was not justified in dismissing the petition as premature on the basis of the two-year requirement.

However, the matter did not end there. During the hearing, counsel for the appellants conceded that the couple had not yet completed even one year of living separately. Accepting this submission, the High Court granted them liberty to file a fresh petition for mutual consent divorce after completing one year of separation, in accordance with law.

With this clarification, the appeal was allowed to the limited extent indicated, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae in the matter.

The ruling reinforces that once a High Court reads down or strikes down a provision of a parliamentary statute on constitutional grounds, the effect is not confined to that state alone. For Christian couples seeking divorce by mutual consent under the Divorce Act, the operative separation period now stands at one year, not two.

Case Reference : FA (MAT) No. 448 of 2025, Ankur David and Another v. Nill; Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate; Amicus Curiae: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate.