Prateek Jalan, J.

Issue notice. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate accepts notice. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 01.05.2019 by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House has rejected the application of the petitioner for waiving the statutory period of six months under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The petitioner [wife] and the respondent [husband] were married on 27.07.2017 and started living separately from 25.10.2017. In the course of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the parties settled their disputes through mediation, and the settlement was recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10.10.2018. The MOU, inter alia, provided for the marriage to be dissolved by mutual consent, and for payment of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by the respondent to the petitioner in installments.

4. Accordingly, the parties moved a petition under Section 13B (1) of the Act before the Principal Judge, Family, Patiala House Courts seeking dissolution of their marriage. By an order dated 22.11.2018, the petition was allowed and it was recorded that the requirements of Section 13B (1) of the Act have been satisfied. However, in view of Section 13B (2), the petitioner was required to move a second motion petition, in accordance with the time frame provided therein. On 20.12.2018, the parties jointly filed an application for waiver of the statutory period of six months provided in Section 13B (2), relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746. The Family Court, by an order dated 08.01.2019, adjourned the matter to 27.04.2019, by which time the composite period of 18 months of separation one year provided in Section 13B (1) and six months in Section 13B (2) - would have lapsed. However, on the adjourned date, the Trial Court declined to entertain the matter, in view of the fact that the period of 18 months of separation had not expired prior to the filing of the first motion petition. This order was challenged before this Court in CM (M) 672/2019. The Court recorded that the petitioner herein intended to enter into marriage with another person on 02.05.2019, and therefore, observed that it would be appropriate if the Learned Family Court heard the waiver application on 01.05.2019.

5. The impugned order dated 01.05.2019 has been passed pursuant to the aforementioned direction. The Family Court noticed the judgment in Amardeep Singh (supra) and held that the parties herein are not entitled to the benefit thereof, as the statutory period of 18 months had not passed prior to the filing of the first motion petition. The application has, therefore, been rejected with the following observations:-

"5. I have heard arguments and have gone through the petition filed by the petitioners. The date of separation between the parties mentioned in the petition is 25.10.2017. The petition for grant of divorce under Section 3 B (1) of HMA was filed on 14.11.2018, therefore, at the time of filing of first motion only about 13 months of separation were over.

6. It is clear from the judgment relied upon by the petitioners that application for waiving of six months in second motion petition can be allowed only in a case wherein the statutory period of six months specified in 13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13 B (1) of separation of the parties is already over before the first motion itself.

7. It is therefore clear that a total period of 18 months of separation should be over at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13 B (1) and only then the application for waiver of mandatory period of six month under Section 13 B (2) of HMA can be allowed. In the present petition at the time of filing of petition under Section 13 B (1) only about 13 months of separation had passed.

8. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioners for waiving of the