JUDGMENT :

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. The Petitioners have preferred this Petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed below Application (Exh. 10) in HMP No. 2757 of 2021 dated 4.1.2022, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad has dismissed the Exh. 10 Application, which is filed for the prayer to waive the cooling period of 6 months as there are no chances of reunion between the parties.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the marriage between the Petitioners was solemnized on 8.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs at Ahmedabad but due to differences arisen between the Petitioners, the Petitioners are living separately since December 2020 and all efforts for reconciliation were in vain. They have therefore, with mutual consent, filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 2757 of 2021 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad. Both the Petitioners have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') on 18.10.2021 for mutual divorce and that as per the said MoU, the Petitioners have agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases filed against each other. The learned Family Judge has sent the Petitioners for mediation, however the same failed and the report dated 31.12.2021 to that effect was placed before the learned Family Court Judge, Ahmedabad. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted the Application Exh. 10 filed by the Petitioners for waiving of cooling period of six months came to be rejected by the learned Family Judge and therefore the present Petitioners are before this Hon'ble Court challenging the same.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioners vested in it under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by misinterpreting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 as well as in the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, (Civil Appeal No. 7650 of 2021). It is further submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 13B(2) are discretionary and not mandatory. It is submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has erred in misconstruing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis that the conditions specified in paragraph 19 of the said judgment are mandatory and that the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13B(2) can only be waived if all the conditions therein are fulfilled, in particular, the condition of separation of at least one had half year before making the motion of decree of divorce. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that the learned Family Court Judge has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for granting waiver of time of cooling period under the provisions of Section 13B(2) of the Act for all the cases. The interpretation of provisions of Section 13B(2) of the Act is not done under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and only decree of divorce was passed under the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India due to passage of time and to prevent agony of the litigants-Husband and wife. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the marriage between the Petitioners is irretrievably broken down due to irreconcilable differences between them and that all the efforts for saving the marriage have failed, including mediation and that the Petitioners are not willing to live together as husband and wife even after more than 12 months of separation and therefore is no possibility of resuming the matrimonial relationship and that too when the Petitioners have genuinely settled all their differences and have withdrawn all the pending