The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cooling period under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived in exceptional situations where there is no chance of reconciliation and the parties have been separated for a longer period.

JUDGMENT :

Shri I.P.S. Kohli, counsel with Shri A.P.S.

Sisodiya, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Avnish Singh, counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 18-7-2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in HMA Case No. 152-A/2019 by which the application filed by the applicant under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for waiving of the cooling period of six months has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a joint application under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the applicant as well as respondent for grant of divorce by mutual consent. The statements of the witnesses were recorded on 25-6-2019 and thereafter the case was fixed for further proceedings on 4-1-2020 and thereafter the applicant filed an application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for waiving of the cooling period.

4. It is the contention of the applicants in the application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code that the case was fixed for the first time for reconciliation proceedings on 17-5-2017 but the same failed and, accordingly, case was taken up by the Family Court on 25-6-2019 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded and now the case has been fixed for further proceedings on 4-1-2020. For waiving of the cooling period, it was mentioned in the application that since the parties are residing separately from 26-6-2017 and the said decision was taken voluntarily and the parties have also decided to stay separately and now there is no possibility of reconciliation or restitution of conjugal rights. It is also mentioned that the parties are well educated and they are aware of the pros and cons of the proceedings and the parties are residing separately for the last two years and there is no possibility of any reconciliation in the future and the parties are aggrieved by grant of six months’ time by way of cooling period. It was further mentioned in the application that the parties want to reside separately in a fearless and tension free atmosphere and they want to remarry so that they can serve their parents. Looking to their age as well as the social status, remarriage of the parties is possible and the cooling period of six months would further delay in justice and keeping the application pending unnecessarily before the Court would be painful for the parties. It is also mentioned that now the case is fixed for 4-1-2020 and this period of six months would result in mental pain and suffering to the parties and the parties have already undergone the pain and suffering. It was further mentioned that on 4-1- 2020 also, there is no possibility of reconciliation and the parties have already resolved their disputes between them and this cooling period would merely enhance the mental pain and suffering to the parties and it would result in keeping the case unnecessarily pending before the Family Court.

5. The trial Court by order dated 18-7-2019 has rejected the application after considering the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the parities had stayed together for a period of just 8-10 days after their marriage and from thereafter they are continuously residing separately and there is no possibility of reconciliation between them and the applicant has to go back to USA for doing his research work whereas the respondent also wants to go to Italy, therefore, if the divorce proceedings are not disposed of prior to their departure then they would suffer irreparable loss. It is further submitted that after the marriage, the marriage has not been consummated so far.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. During the course of arguments, an impression was given by the applicant that in spite of the bes