JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

This is an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of order dated 14.01.2026 and restoration of the petition.

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 14.01.2026 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself.

Main case

1. The present joint petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the wife (petitioner No.1) and husband (petitioner No.2). The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 01.10.2025, whereby the application filed by the parties for waiver of the statutory period of six months for recording of the statement of second motion as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed. The petitioners had filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. In the said petition, it was stated that the petitioners No.1 and 2 had married on 07.07.2019 as per Sikh religious rites and rituals at Gurdwara Dera Baba Achar Singh, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur and that although the marriage was duly consummated but there was no child from the wedlock. It was stated that on account of temperamental differences, there were daily quarrels and fights between the parties and the petitioners started apprehending physical and mental harm from each other and thus, it became impossible and impracticable to live under one roof. It is further specifically stated that the parents of the petitioners also intervened in the matter but in spite of their intervention, it became impossible for the petitioners to live with each other and they are residing separately since 31.03.2024. It was further stated that the petitioners had settled their past, present and future maintenance and all property issues and nothing is due from one petitioner to the other and that the consent to take divorce is mutual and is without any force or undue influence. The statement of petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner No.2 was recorded on 06.09.2025 in which all the abovesaid averments were reiterated and it was also further specifically stated that it was with the intervention of the respectables that a compromise had been effected between the parties with free consent and without any coercion and pressure and it was prayed that a decree of divorce be granted by mutual consent. The case was thereafter adjourned to 16.03.2026 for recording of second motion statement. The petitioners had moved an application for waiver of the statutory period of six months and in the said application, it was specifically stated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and it would be in the best interest of both the parties that the said period of six months be waived off.

2. The trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2025 however dismissed the said application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied 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 in support of his arguments and has submitted that in view of law laid down in the abovesaid judgment, impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners be allowed.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of both the petitioners.

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 divorce deed that they have been residing separately since March, 2024 and the joint petition was i