Family Courts must reconsider Section 13B(2) waiver applications, recognizing the six-month cooling-off period as directory.

The petitioner and respondent jointly instituted proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent. They also jointly sought waiver of the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2). The Family Court rejected the waiver application by order dated 15 July 2026 in RCS H.M. No. 942/2026.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, relying on decisions permitting waiver of the cooling-off period where the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the parties had no possibility of reconciliation. The parties were stated to have been living separately for approximately six years.

Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the parties’ application for waiver of the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without considering the law laid down in subsequent Supreme Court decisions?

Whether the High Court should itself grant the waiver or remand the matter to the Family Court for reconsideration in accordance with the applicable legal principles?

Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, permits parties to jointly seek dissolution of marriage by mutual consent where they have lived separately for at least one year, have been unable to live together, and mutually agree to dissolve the marriage.

The six-month period under Section 13B(2) is directory rather than mandatory and may be waived in appropriate cases. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Supreme Court held that waiver may be considered where the statutory period has substantially elapsed, reconciliation and mediation efforts have failed, the parties have genuinely settled issues such as alimony and custody, and continuation of the waiting period would only prolong their agony.

In Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, the Supreme Court clarified that these factors are illustrative and not exhaustive, and that the court must exercise discretion based on the facts of each case; the conditions in Amardeep Singh are not rigidly mandatory. The High Court also referred to Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar, a decision of the Delhi High Court, as part of the subsequent legal position on waiver.

The High Court found that the Family Court’s rejection of the waiver application appeared to have been based on the earlier understanding of the law, without considering the subsequent decisions in Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar, which recognize that the six-month period is directory and may be waived where reconciliation is unlikely and the parties have genuinely settled their disputes.

The fact that the parties had lived separately for approximately six years supported reconsideration of the waiver request. However, instead of granting the waiver directly, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Family Court to reconsider the application in light of the applicable Supreme Court judgments.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court with a direction to reconsider and decide the waiver application in accordance with Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, and the principles referred to in the High Court’s earlier order, preferably within fifteen days from receipt of the certified copy of the High Court’s order. The High Court did not itself grant the waiver; it directed expedited reconsideration by the Family Court.