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

The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on 22 February 2023 and had been living separately since 26 April 2024 due to matrimonial differences and incompatibility. No child was born from the marriage, and the parties stated that their disputes concerning maintenance, permanent alimony and other matrimonial claims had been amicably settled.

They jointly instituted proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Their First Motion statements were recorded on 15 May 2026, and the matter was listed for Second Motion statements on 18 November 2026.

The parties thereafter jointly sought waiver of the statutory cooling-off period, contending that reconciliation was impossible and that all disputes had been settled. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, rejected the waiver application by order dated 30 June 2026 in H.M.A. Case No. 658/2026.

The wife challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, with the husband supporting the petition and expressing no objection to the relief.

Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the parties’ joint application for waiver of the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, continuation of the statutory waiting period would serve any useful purpose when the parties had separated, reconciliation had failed and their matrimonial disputes had been settled?

The Court applied Sections 13-B(1) and 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that the six-month period contemplated under Section 13-B(2) is discretionary and may be waived in appropriate cases.

Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, the Court considered whether the parties had genuinely settled their differences, whether efforts at mediation and reconciliation had failed, whether there was any possibility of resumption of matrimonial life, and whether the waiting period 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 not mandatory preconditions and identified relevant considerations such as the duration of the marriage, the period of cohabitation, the length of separation, pending litigation, the possibility of reconciliation, the existence of children and the genuineness of the settlement concerning alimony, maintenance and custody.

The Court further followed the Division Bench decision in M.P. No. 166/2025 and the Coordinate Bench decision in M.P. No. 5584/2025.

The Court found that the parties had jointly sought waiver, had been living separately since April 2024, had no child, and had settled their financial and other matrimonial disputes.

The respondent-husband had also filed an affidavit supporting the petition and expressed no objection to the relief.

Applying Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar, the Court held that the Family Court had failed to consider the absence of any realistic possibility of reconciliation and the fact that insisting on completion of the cooling-off period would only prolong the parties’ agony.

Since Section 13-B(2) confers discretion rather than imposing an inflexible mandatory waiting period, the rejection of the joint waiver application was legally unsustainable.

It directed the concerned Family Court to decide the application under Section 13-B expeditiously, keeping in view the principles laid down in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal.

The parties were directed to remain present before the Family Court on 1 September 2026.

The petition was consequently disposed of, with a direction for issuance of a certified copy as per the rules.