MP HC Gives Family Court 15 Days To Reconsider Separated Couple’s Request To Waive Mutual-Divorce Waiting Period

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

They later sought waiver of the statutory cooling-off period, but the Family Court rejected their application on 30 September 2026 and fixed the matter for a later hearing.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, relying on an earlier High Court order directing fresh consideration of a similar waiver application.

The High Court treated the issue as covered by that earlier order.

Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for a waiting period in proceedings for divorce by mutual consent, but Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur treats that period as directory and permits waiver where the court is satisfied that the circumstances justify it.

Relevant considerations include whether reconciliation efforts have been made, whether the parties have genuinely settled their differences (including issues such as alimony and child custody), and whether waiting would prolong their agony; these considerations are not exhaustive.

Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal clarifies that the factors identified in Amardeep Singh are illustrative, not rigid preconditions, and that the court must exercise discretion in the circumstances of each case.

The High Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on an earlier decision in which the Family Court had been directed to reconsider a cooling-off-period waiver application under the principles in Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar.

Finding the present issue squarely covered by that decision and the circumstances comparable, the Court concluded that the Family Court should reconsider the application by applying those authorities.

It did not determine that the statutory period must be waived; that decision was left to the Family Court on reconsideration.

The Family Court may use video conferencing, as the petitioner was stated to reside abroad.

The High Court therefore directed reconsideration rather than itself granting the waiver.