The court interpreted the provisions of Section 13B of the HMA, waiving the one-year period for divorce by mutual consent and considering the six months' period as directory, not mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. Mr. Rishabh Jain and Ms. Nitakshi Jain, the parties in the present matter were married on 28th November, 2019. It is their case that they could not live together even for a period of two months after their marriage and they started living separately since January, 2020 itself. Various efforts were made to reconcile their disputes with the intervention of family. However, the same failed.

3. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter "HMA") for restitution of conjugal rights was also filed. However, the parties continued to live separately. Finally, with the intervention of friends and family, a memorandum of settlement was entered into by the parties on 27th June, 2020 by which all their disputes were resolved. The said settlement has been placed on record. It is signed by both the parties along with their parents. The said memorandum of settlement is signed by family members of both sides.

4. Both the parties have appeared before this Court and they confirm that the memorandum of settlement has been entered into by them.

5. The parties after having arrived at the settlement, filed a joint petition under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) 736/2020. However, the Supreme Court did not entertain the petition and parties were given liberty to approach the Family Court. The order dated 11th August, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court reads as under:

"We are declining this petition filed under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.

Liberty to move Family Court in accordance with law."

6. The parties then approached the Principal Judge, Family Courts, (South-East), Saket, New Delhi on 5th September, 2020 under Section 13B of the HMA for a divorce by mutual consent. Along with the said petition, they also filed an application under Section 14 of the HMA for waiver of the period of one year of marriage which is required to have passed before filing a divorce petition under Section 14 of the HMA, along with a waiver of the period of 6 months before a second motion can be filed under Section 13B of the HMA. The said application was dismissed by Principal Judge, Family Courts, (South East), Saket, New Delhi on 24th September, 2020 on the ground that the period required as per law had not expired. The said order was assailed before this Court in CM(M) 572/2020 and vide order dated 17th November, 2020, the ld. Single Judge of this Court records as under:

"CM(M) 572/2020

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, (South-East), Family Court in HMA No. 383/2020.

It is the case of the petitioner that the parties were married as per Hindu rights and ceremonies on 28.11.2019 and have been living separately since 10.05.2020. The parties are of a young age and wish to restart their lives. The parties have also arrived at an amicable settlement in this regard.

The respondent who appears in person and has been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no chance of reapprochment in the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in any case, one year period would expire on 27.11.2020.

In view of the submissions made, the Impugned Order is set aside and the petition is restored back to its original number to be listed before the learned Family Court on 1st December, 2020.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent who appears in person, on their e-mail addresses provided."

7. After the petition was restored, the parties appeared before the Principal Judge, (South-East), Family Courts, Saket. However, vide the impugned order dated 9th December, 2020, the matter was merely adjourned to 18th May, 2021 by observing that neither th