The cooling-off period in divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is discretionary and not mandatory.

JUDGMENT

In re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2023

Present appeal has been presented with a delay of 11 days. The same has been duly explained.

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

3. Delay is condone. Delay condonation application is allowed.

Order on Appeal

4. Heard Sri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sheo Mani Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The present appeal has been filed under section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, arising from order dated 31.5.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 1074 of 2023 (Ashwani Gwal v. Priti). By that order the learned court below has entertained the joint petition filed by the parties under section 13-B HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"). However, it is the grievance of both the parties that, instead of waiving the statutory period of six months, the learned court below has referred the matter to mediation and thereafter directed the first motion petition to be listed on 20.9.2023. Thereafter, the date for second motion petition has been fixed for 4.12.2023.

6. At present, the parties appear to be in agreement that their marriage has failed, completely. Also, though they were married in the year 2009, they have no children born from the marriage and have been living separately since 20.2.2015. They have never cohabited in the meanwhile. Having reached the consensus that their marriage does not survive, the parties had approached the learned court below jointly, to seek dissolution of their marriage. Instead of granting waiver, with respect to the statutory period, the learned court below has acted mechanically in referring the matter to mediation. Even thereafter, the learned court below has required the parties to appear on the first motion petition on 20.9.2023 and almost two months thereafter, a date has been fixed for the second motion petition.

7. In the unfortunate circumstances in which the parties find themselves, it has been urged that such long date fixed in the proceedings after the parties have reached a consensus that their marriage does not survive, amounts to prolonging their otherwise insufferable agony. It is stated, fairly long period of separate living has been suffered by the parties as may have persuaded the Court to exercise its power to grant waiver to the present joint motion petition. Reference has also been made to the fact that the parties are mature enough to understand the pros and cons of their action. Both are more than 30 years of age. It has further been stated that at present Ms. Priti Yadav is seeking a second matrimonial alliance. She seeks to start her life afresh. Thus for that circumstance, a joint petition had been filed.

8. The parties are also present in the Court. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. The Court has briefly interacted with them. We are thus informed by Ms. Priti Yadav that her second marriage is to be solemnised, next month. Both the parties appear to have reached the consensus of their own free will that their marriage does not survive. They have also referred to certain failed efforts made to revive their marriage.

9. Thus, as an appeal Court, we are convinced that the parties have taken an informed decision to dissolve their marriage. They are both mature and appear to have taken the decision to give their lives a second chance.

10. Seen in that light, the rules of procedure ought to have been applied commensurate to circumstances brought before the Court. No pedantic or mechanical approach may have been ad