MP HC Gives Family Court 15 Days to Decide Couple’s Plea to Waive Six-Month Mutual-Divorce Waiting Period

In brief

The question

Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the joint application for waiver of the statutory cooling-off period should be set aside for reconsideration in light of the governing precedents.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to decide the waiver application in light of the judgments referred to in the earlier High Court order, preferably within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

The Family Court may conduct the proceedings by video conference.

The High Court did not itself grant waiver of the cooling-off period.

01Facts

The parties jointly petitioned for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the first-motion hearing, they jointly sought waiver of the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2).

The Family Court dismissed the application, citing the need to determine whether the parties were legally married and the absence of material concerning maintenance and child custody.

The husband challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 2

He relied on earlier High Court orders addressing waiver of the cooling-off period.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the joint application for waiver of the statutory cooling-off period should be set aside for reconsideration in light of the governing precedents.

¶ 2, 6

ii.Whether the Family Court may use video conferencing in conducting the reconsideration proceedings where the petitioner resides abroad.

¶ 7

03Law Applied

Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for a six-month waiting period in mutual-consent divorce proceedings.

¶ 5–6

As explained in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, that period is directory, not mandatory, and the court may waive it in appropriate circumstances.

¶ 5–6

The court should consider, among other relevant factors, whether reconciliation efforts have been made, whether the parties have genuinely settled their differences—including issues of alimony and child custody—and whether further waiting would prolong their hardship; the factors are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

¶ 5–6

The High Court also relied on its earlier order in M.P. No. 4144 of 2026, which directed reconsideration of a waiver application in light of those Supreme Court decisions.

¶ 5–6

Article 227 was invoked as the basis for supervisory review.

¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13B

04Reasoning

The High Court considered the issue covered by its earlier order in M.P. No. 4144 of 2026, which required waiver applications to be assessed in light of Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar.

¶ 5–6

Rather than deciding whether the cooling-off period should be waived on the merits, it directed the Family Court to reconsider the joint application under those authorities.

It also permitted the Family Court to use video conferencing, noting that the petitioner reportedly resides abroad.

¶ 7