Family Court Must Assess Section 13B(2) Waiver Under Governing Supreme Court Precedents.

The parties jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court fixed the matter after the statutory six-month period and the parties sought waiver of that period, but their application remained undecided.

The husband approached the High Court under Article 227, seeking an early decision on the waiver application and permission to participate in further proceedings by video conference because he resided abroad.

Whether the Family Court should be directed to decide the parties’ application for waiver of the six-month cooling-off period in light of the applicable precedents.

Whether the Family Court could use video conferencing to enable the husband’s participation in the proceedings.

Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for a waiting period in proceedings for divorce by mutual consent; the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur held that the period is directory and may be waived in an appropriate case, and observed that video conferencing may be used where justified.

Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal clarified that the factors identified in Amardeep Singh are illustrative and that waiver is assessed in the circumstances of each case.

The Court also relied on its order in M.P. No. 4144 of 2026, which directed reconsideration of a waiver application in light of the relevant precedents.

The High Court considered the waiver issue covered by its earlier order in M.P. No. 4144 of 2026.

Rather than deciding whether the parties were entitled to waiver, it directed the Family Court to determine the pending application in light of the cited authorities.

Given the husband’s stated residence abroad, it also noted that the Family Court could use video conferencing in conducting the proceedings.

The Family Court may use video conferencing for the proceedings.

The High Court did not itself grant the waiver.