The Section 13-B(2) cooling-off period is discretionary and may be waived where reconciliation is futile.

The petitioner and respondent were married on 9 February 2023 at Bhopal according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to incompatible behaviour, conduct and temperament, they began living separately in 2023 and were unable to resume cohabitation.

The parties jointly instituted proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Gwalior. Their First Motion statements were recorded on 17 April 2026, and the matter was fixed for recording final statements on 22 October 2026.

The parties thereafter jointly sought waiver of the statutory cooling-off period, asserting that they had lived separately for more than three years, reconciliation efforts had failed, and there was no possibility of reunion. The Additional Family Court, Gwalior, rejected the application on 3 August 2026, leading to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the statutory six-month waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is mandatory or may be waived in appropriate circumstances?

Whether, on the facts of the case, the Family Court erred in rejecting the parties’ joint application for waiver where the parties had lived separately for more than three years and reconciliation was not possible?

Whether the impugned order dated 3 August 2026 was liable to be set aside and the Family Court directed to reconsider the application expeditiously?

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the six-month period between the First Motion and the Second Motion is not mandatory and may be waived in the Court’s discretion in suitable cases.

Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, the Court considered whether the parties had already undergone the requisite period of separation, whether reconciliation and mediation efforts had failed, whether their disputes had been genuinely settled, and whether further waiting would merely prolong their agony.

The Court also relied on Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270, which clarified that the factors in Amardeep Singh are guiding considerations rather than inflexible mandatory conditions; relevant factors include the duration of the marriage, the period of cohabitation and separation, pending litigation, the possibility of reconciliation, children, and the voluntariness and completeness of the settlement.

The Court found that the parties had mutually decided to dissolve the marriage, had jointly sought waiver, and had already recorded their First Motion statements.

Their separation had continued for more than three years, and both parties maintained that reconciliation was impossible. Applying Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar, the Court held that insistence on completion of the waiting period would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong the parties’ matrimonial agony.

The Family Court had failed to apply the discretionary nature of Section 13-B(2) and had therefore erred in rejecting the joint waiver application.

It held that the period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) is discretionary and not mandatory.

The concerned Family Court was directed to decide the parties’ application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the principles laid down in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with a direction for issuance of a certified copy in accordance with the rules.