The irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the parties' amicable decision to part ways can warrant the waiver of the statutory period for mutual consent divorce.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral). - This is a petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar, Camp Court at Phillaur whereby, application for waiver of statutory period of 06 months filed in a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed. Reliance is placed on the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in case titled as "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur", 2017 (8) 800 746.

2. Succinctly, brief facts of the case are that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 13.04.2019 at village Ramgarh, Phillaur District Jalandhar according to Hindu Rites. The parties cohabited as husband and wife at Village Sangatpura, District Jalandhar. Due to temperamental differences, both the parties started living separately since October, 2019.

3. There being no chance of reconciliation, despite efforts, the parties, therefore, filed a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent, under Section 13-B of HMA before the Family Court. All the disputes pertaining to their matrimonial life have been amicably settled between the parties. At the time of first motion hearing of the case on 27.11.2020, their statements were also recorded and the case was adjourned to 02.07.2021 for second motion hearing.

4. During the interregnum of taking up of the second motion hearing, remarriage of petitioner No. 1 was also on the cards, but the same could not be finalized due to pendency of mutual consent petition. In the premise, both the parties moved an application for waiver of statutory period of six months, which has been dismissed by the Family Court vide impugned order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P-3).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in the right perspective, while declining waiver of the period of 6 months. Once the parties have amicably consented to part their ways, they cannot be forced to wait for another six months, is the contention. Counsel relies on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case titled as "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra)", to contend that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the petitioners ought to have been exempted from the period of six months for recording their second statement. The joint application filed by them ought to have been allowed in terms of the judgment, ibid.

6. I have also interacted with the parties. Both of them seem to have settled their dispute without any duress or pressure with a tranquil state of mental dispensation .

7. On court query, petitioner /wife submits that she has received entire settlement amount and is happy with the settlement. She has decided to move on in her life and wishes to start the same afresh with another partner after obtaining divorce by mutual consent. She submits that she has filed her mutual consent petition on her own volition without any duress or coercion. She states that immediately after her marriage with respondent on 13.04.2019, temperamental differences started to emerge due to different way of thinking and lifestyle and both them separated from each other on 12.10.2019. They have been living separately ever since. She submits that both of them already tried to sort out their differences by reconciliation with the help of their friends and relatives/family members, but all attempts have been futile.

8. Keeping in view the averments made in the petition and in view of the ratio in Amardeep Singh' case (supra), I am of the view that the approach adopted by the Court below in the present case, to insist waiting period of six months for second motion, was uncalled for. The marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken. They have decided to part their ways amicably. Opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like, including remarriage, cannot be denied. In the peculiar facts herein