IMPORTANT POINT
The cooling period for divorce under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived if there is no possibility of reconciliation between the spouses.

Headnote:
waiving off cooling period - divorce petition - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13-B - summary of key legal provisions and interpretations
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to waive the cooling period for divorce under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the parties had been living separately for more than three years and had mutually agreed to divorce. The Family Court rejected the application, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Family Court's rejection was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 13-B(2) in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal. It held that the cooling period is not mandatory and can be waived in cases where reconciliation is not possible.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cooling period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act could be waived in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the cooling period is not mandatory and can be waived if there is no possibility of reconciliation between the spouses, and the waiting period would serve no purpose except to prolong their agony.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Family Court's order was quashed. The application for waiving the cooling period was also allowed, and the Family Court was directed to consider and decide the divorce petition expeditiously.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as well as opposite party under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for waiving off the ‘cooling period’ in H.M.A. Case No. 2978 of 2023 (Layak Singh v. Smt. Ekta Kumari, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Layak Singh was married to the opposite party Smt. Ekta Kumari on 29.06.2020 at Sundarpada Thana Nai Ki Mandi, District Agra. Soon after the marriage, both the parties found that it was not possible for them to live together and opposite party Ekta Kumari left the matrimonial home on 28.10.2020. Despite best efforts made by the family members and other members of the society, they failed to resolve their dispute and were adamant to take divorce. Both the parties lodged cases, against each other. The petitioner as well as the opposite party came to an agreement that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the opposite party and they would divorce each other. An application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner as well as opposite party on 10.11.2023 for divorce on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. On 10.11.2023, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, fixed 13.03.2024 for mediation and 13.05.2024 for second motion. On 09.01.2024, a joint application was moved by the petitioner as well as opposite party for early disposal of divorce petition on the ground that the petitioner had applied for service in various states outside the State of Uttar Pradesh but because of pendency of the case, the petitioner was unable to join the service. It was also mentioned that the opposite party also wants to get the petition decided expeditiously so that she may live separately. The application so filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra by its order dated 10.01.2024, hence the present petition.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and opposite party are residing separately for more than three years and all the efforts of conciliation between them had already failed. Both the parties had decided to part ways and had agreed for dissolving their marriage. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra had rejected the application on the ground that cooling period can be waived only by Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India. The view taken by the Principal Judge Family Court, Agra was erroneous. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the agreement, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-by means of a bank draft to the opposite party and both the parties had agreed and are still agree for divorce by mutual consent. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur reported in (2017) 8 SCC 466.

5. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant statutory provision.

6. Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is as follows:

"13-B. Divorce by mutual consent.-(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised 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 p