Point of law: Mutual divorce – Waiving of six month periods - it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. In the present matter the wife remained in her matrimonial house only for four days and for more than one year they are living separately.

JUDGMENT :

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant (wife) and Ms. Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel for second respondent (husband).

2. The exemption application is allowed. Let the appeal be given regular number.

3. Present first appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of order dated 12.1.2021 passed by Incharge Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Divorce Petition No. 592 of 2020 Smt. Priyanka Chauhan v. Saurabh Chauhan, by which application 17/C has been rejected by learned Family Court without assigning any reason. The application 17/C has been filed by the appellant and second respondent supported with a joint affidavit 18/C for waiving six months statutory period for second motion before granting a decree for mutual divorce.

4. The question, which arises for consideration in the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13-B(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (The Act) for motion of passing of decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent may be relaxed in any exceptional situation.

5. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, a Divorce Petition for a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, was filed by the appellant and second respondent under Section 14 of the Act which was initially registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 89 of 2020, after expiry of one year from the date of marriage, registered as Original Suit. A joint application 17/C under sub-section (2) of Section 13-B the Act, along with joint affidavit 18/C has been filed by the parties stating that the marriage of appellant and second respondent was solemnized on 11.12.2019 with Hindu rites and rituals. The appellant is resident of Rohini, Delhi, whereas the second respondent is resident of Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. It is contended that from the date of marriage the appellant lived only four days at her matrimonial house and from 16.12.2019 the appellant started residing at her parental house at New Delhi. On account of temperamental and ideological differences the marriage could not be consummated and both are residing separately from 16.12.2019. It is contended that various efforts were made by the family members of both the parties and their well wishers but they could not arrived at settlement to live together a happy married life. When all the efforts for reconciliation stands failed, they ultimately arrived into a settlement in writing dated 24.7.2020 for taking mutual divorce. In view, thereof, the details of articles mentioned in Schedule-A of the mutual settlement dated 24.7.2020 was handed over to the appellant in presence of all the well-wishers. Through mutual settlement dated 24.7.2020 it was further agreed that the articles mentioned in Schedule-B of the agreement shall be put into custody of one Sudhir Kumar son of Sri Jhanda Singh being closed relative and well-wisher of both the parties, which shall be handed over to the appellant after the second motion of divorce petition and recording of statement of appellant in divorce petition to be filed by mutual consent. It is being claimed that without there being any undue influence, threat or coercion the couple decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce.

6. The Family Court by the impunged order rejected the application 17/C on the ground that till date no effort has been made by the court for reconciliation and mediation between the parties, without considering the peculiar facts of the case. While they pleaded that marriage could not be consummated due to temperamental and ideological differences and both are residing separately from 16.12.2019 i.e. more than one year from the marriage; all the efforts for reconciliation stands failed; they arrived into a settlement in writing for taking a mutual divorce, articles mentioned in Schedule-A of the mutual settlement dated 24.07.2020 was