JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 563/2021 whereby the application filed by the parties seeking exemption of 6 months time period as provided under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the H.M.A. Act’) was rejected.

2. On 24.08.2021, appellant and respondent filed an application under Section 13B of the H.M.A. Act stating that their marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs at Udaipur. Ever since the marriage, on one count or the other, there was estrangement amongst them and due to ideological differences, the relationship reached to the point of no return. As a consequence, the appellant and respondent started living separately since 29.01.2019. It was finally decided by the spouses that they should part ways peacefully.

3. Both the parties arrived at a consensus that they will not claim any other amount regarding compensation, stridhan, movable and immovable property and that Shri Kamal would pay to Smt. Varsha, a banker's cheque/demand draft/RTGS as one time maintenance amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs at the time of grant of divorce decree.

4. In this regard, an application under Section 13B of the H.M.A. Act for divorce by mutual consent was filed by the spouses and came to be listed before the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur on 15.09.2021. The learned Family Court posted the matter on 28.02.2022 in the light of the fact that out of three Family Courts working at Jodhpur, one Family Court is lying vacant and on account of huge pendency and work, the disposal of application is not possible.

5. On 23.09.2021, inspite of Section 13B of the H.M.A. Act application for exemption of 6 months' period in the light of Apex court judgment titled Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746, which was applicable in the facts and circumstances, the same was adjourned and the matter was fixed for 28.02.2022. Hence, the present appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act seeking exemption of statutory period of 6 months when the dissolution of marriage has to take place with mutual acceptance.

6. During the course of hearing, the respondent Smt. Varsha made appearance in person and the appellant was represented by his advocate Mr. Beem Kant Vyas. Both of them jointly requested for consideration of their prayers for exemption of statutory period under Section 13B of the H.M.A. Act at the earliest and for dissolution of marriage. In this background and looking to the prayer made and facts and circumstances, we have expedited the proceedings and were inclined to pass orders in the present appeal.

7. In order to decide the present appeal, it is important to consider the provisions of Section 13B of the H.M.A. Act, which are reproduced as under:

“13B. Divorce by mutual consent:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the mean time, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved w.e.f. from the date of the decree.”

8. It is important to consider judgm