R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

2. The petitioner and the respondent jointly filed O.P.No.1636/2018 in the Family Court, Thrissur under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 for granting a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent. The petitioner filed an application as I.A.No.4728/2018 for waiving the 'cooling period' of six months. As per Ext.P4 order, the Family Court dismissed the aforesaid application. Ext.P4 order is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent.

4. The petitioner and the respondent are Christians. Their marriage was solemnised on 29.12.1999 in a church as per religious ceremonies. They are living separately from 09.01.2016 onwards. On 10.09.2018, they jointly filed O.P.No.1636/2018 in the Family Court under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The application I.A.No.4728/2018 was filed by the petitioner on 27.09.2018 for waiving the cooling period of six months.

5. Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, dismissing the application I.A.No.4728/2018 filed by the petitioner, reads as follows:

“The petition is to waive 6 months period for making second move for divorce under Section 10A of Divorce Act. As per Section 10A(2), the second motion cannot be made before 6 months of the first motion. There is no provision in the Divorce Act to waive 6 months period also. No decision under Section 10A of the Divorce Act brought to my notice permitting waiver of 6 months period. Hence, the petition cannot be allowed. In the result, the petition is dismissed.”

6. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur : AIR 2017 SC 4417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory and whether such period can be relaxed in exceptional situations. The object of the provision contained in Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was considered by the Apex Court and it was held as follows:

“The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off the period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.”

7. In Amardeep Singh (supra), after analysing the provision contained in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows:

“18. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

(i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13-B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

(ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA, Rule 3, CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to re-unite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

(iii) the parties have ge