IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a waiver of the cooling-off period under the Hindu Marriage Act can be granted when reconciliation is deemed impossible and parties have settled their differences.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Family Court, Pune, on 4th June 2024, rejecting the petitioners’ application for waiver of the cooling off period provided under section 13–B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the said Act’). The petitioners got married on 18th July 2021 as per Hindu rituals in Pune. It is the petitioners’ case that there were differences between them after a period of one year, and hence, they started residing separately on 10th October 2022. Though reconciliation attempts were made by their well-wishers, friends and families, they failed, and ultimately, they decided to seek a divorce by mutual consent. In terms of the amicable settlement between the parties, petitioner no. 2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards permanent alimony. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent in the Family Court at Pune on 13th March 2024 and the same was registered on 20th March 2024. Since the parties had already been residing separately since 10th October 2022, they also filed an application for waiver of the six months period and requested for a decree for the dissolution of their marriage. The said application is rejected by the Family Court on 4th June 2024. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of making attempts, parties were unable to reconcile their differences, so they decided to apply for dissolution of their marriage. He further submitted that it was impossible for the parties to reside together. Hence, they applied for a waiver of the statutory period. He further submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has rejected the application on the ground that there was no case made out to exercise the discretion to waive the statutory period of six months. However, he submits that the learned Judge has not given any reasons for rejecting the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 746 and submitted that considering the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Judge of the Family Court ought to have allowed the application for waiving the waiting period of six months. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Manjiri w/o Bhushan Raut and another, Writ Petition No. 3146 of 2022 dated 10th June 2022. He submits that by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court, this Court had allowed the petition in similarly situated facts and waived the period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pratik Rajendra Kutte and another Vs State of Maharashtra through Law and Judiciary Dept, Writ Petition No. 4747 of 2024 dated 19th June 2024 where a similar view was taken by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court, in the case of Pratik Kutte, has allowed the application for waiver and, instead of relegating the parties to the Family Court, granted dissolution of marriage by directing the Family Court to draw a decree for divorce.

5. Learned counsel submits that in view of the facts of the present case, the decision in the case of Pratik Kutte would squarely apply to the present case. He submits that there is no possibility of any reconciliation; hence, the application for waiver be allowed, and the parties be granted an order of dissolution of their marriage.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition was taken up for final disposal. The learned Judge of the Family Court held that merely because the parties have been residing separately for the last 22 months, the same cannot be a ground to waive the statutory waiting period. The learned Jud