ORDER :

1. Learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Arjun Joshi would submit that they have instruction to appear for the respondent and would request that the Registry may be directed to accept their vakalatnama. Permission is granted. Registry to accept their vakalatnama for the respondent.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the petitioner and learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Arjun Joshi for the respondent.

3. While the present petition has been preferred inter-alia challenging an order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 10/2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad and whereas it appears that during the pendency of the present petition, the parties to the litigation i.e. the petitioner, being the husband and the respondent, being the wife, have arrived at an amicable settlement and whereas consent terms are presented to this Court.

4. Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties would submit that the parties are present in this Court and whereas this Court may pass appropriate order in terms of the consent terms submitted by the parties.

5. It is required to be mentioned herein that the parties to the litigation, as noted herein above, had got married on 12.9.2000 and whereas the parties are parents of two daughters named Aaryana aged 19 years and Anaya aged 13 years. Both the parties are reasonably educated persons and whereas both the parties agree to the fact that they have been staying separately since the year 2016. Both the parties, as it appears, have filed independent proceedings being HMP No. 2206 of 2019 and HMP No. 1081 of 2020 praying for divorce from each other. The learned Advocates for the parties would submit that the parties have been staying separately since the year 2016 and since both are of mature age and being well educated individuals, they understand the consequences of their action and whereas the parties would jointly request that the statutory waiting period of six months as contemplated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act be waived and a decree of divorce on mutual consent may be passed by this Court.

6. While the parties have requested for an order in terms of the ‘Consent Terms’ submitted, but at the same time, since a question with regard to waiver of statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act has arisen, therefore, the said aspect as to whether this Court is empowered to grant waiver of statutory period or not is required to be decided. In this regard, this Court seeks to rely upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 and Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, 2021 SCC Online SC 1270. In case of Amardeep Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering a question as to whether Section 13B(2) has to be read as mandatory or discretionary. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after inter alia discussing the object of introduction of Section 13B(2) had held that the Court is empowered to waive statutory period under Section 13B(2). Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit:

“15. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will only prolong their agony.

16. We have given due consideration to the issue involved. Under the traditional Hindu Law, as it stood prior to the statutory law on the point, marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by consent. The Act enabled the court to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. By way of amendment in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced. However, Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time