ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.2025 passed in RCSHM No.2698/2024 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Indore whereby a joint application filed by the parties herein to waive the mandatory cooling off period of six months as provided under section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act') has been rejected.

2. Admittedly the petitioner and the respondent's marriage was solemnized on 25.6.2020 and they are living separately since 6.2.2021, whereas an application under section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent has been filed on 21.10.2024. Thereafter, a joint application to waive off cooling period of six months was filed on 21.1.2025 wherein it was mentioned that since both the parties have already settled their disputes, the same be allowed and the main application for grant of divorce by mutual consent be considered and allowed. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Family Court by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1270 wherein it has been held in Paragraph Nos.22, 27 and 28 as under :-

"22. The Family Court, as well as the High Court, have misconstrued the judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis that this Court has held that the conditions specified in paragraph 19 of the said judgment, quoted hereinabove, are mandatory and that the statutory waiting period of six months under section 13B (2) can only be waived if all the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, including, in particular, the condition of separation of at least one and half year before making the motion for decree of divorce.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

27. For exercise of the discretion to waive the statutory waiting period of six months for moving the motion for divorce under section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court would consider the following amongst other factors: -

(i) the length of time for which the parties had been married;

(ii) how long the parties had stayed together as husband and wife;

(iii) the length of time the parties had been staying apart;

(iv) the length of time for which the litigation had been pending;

(v) whether there were any other proceedings between the parties;

(vi) whether there was any possibility of reconciliation;

(vii) whether there were any children born out of the wedlock;

(viii) whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children, etc.

28. In this Case, as observed above, the parties are both well-educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months. The marriage was a non-starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except to prolong their agony." (Emphasis supplied)

4. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that in the pressing circumstances, in which the parties have found themselves, the application for waiving the cooling off period of six months has been filed and as has already been held by the Supreme Court that even the conditions as enumerated in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur reported in 2017 (8) SCC 746 are not man