JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Zira whereby the application filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent to waive off six months period for recording statement of second motion has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife have jointly submitted that in the present case, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner and the respondent. In the said petition, it was stated that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 28.11.2019 and since July, 2020, both the parties had been residing separately and there was absolute dead lock between the two parties as there were temperamental differences. It was further specifically stated that the respectables of both the sides tried their level best to arrive at a compromise but there was no hope between the parties to live together and thus, the parties have decided to take divorce and it was also stated that there is no issue between the parties and a lump sum maintenance amount had also been agreed, out of which, Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid at the time first motion and the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of second motion.

3. It is submitted that in support of the said averments, the separate statements of both the petitioner and the respondent have been recorded, which have been annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-2 respectively and in the said statements, it has been reiterated that there is no child born from the wedlock and due to temperamental differences, the parties are residing separately and there are no chances of rehabilitation. It is further submitted that since all the matters have been finally settled and the petitioner and the respondent have been residing separately since July, 2020, thus, the petitioner alongwith the respondent moved an application for preponing the case from 15.07.2025 to an early date so as the second motion statement could also be recorded and it was specifically stated in the same that there was no possibility of cohabitation between the parties but however the said application was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2025. It is submitted that the said application be allowed and the Family Court be directed to record second motion statement. In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as 'Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal' Civil Appeal no. 7650 of 2021 decided on 11.12.2021.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for divorce by mutual consent, requires that before filing a petition under the said provision, the parties should be residing separately for a period of one year or more. The said condition is met in the present case inasmuch as it is the admitted case of the parties, which is apparent from the pleadings as well as the joint statement of the parties that they have been residing separately since July, 2020 and the petition was drafted on 14.01.2025 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years and 5 months of separation. The second condition which has been mentioned in Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is that the second motion is to be made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition and not later than 18 months after the said date.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) had observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur reported as (2017) 8 SCC 746 had observed that in case the Court was satisfied that a case was made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it could do so and there were certain factors which we