JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 04.05.2026

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

GIST:

HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred

1. (2023) 17 SCC 648

2. AIR 2017 SC 4417

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1405 OF 2026

ORDER:

1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the docket order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Prakasam District, Ongole in I.A.No.203 of 2026 in F.C.O.P.No.12 of 2026 dated 12.04.2026.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were married on 04.12.2022 at Ongole and blessed with daughter on 02.09.2023. Due to matrimonial disputes, they have been living separately for about one year and are not on cordial terms. They filed FCOP No.12 of 2023 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. The petition was taken on file on 12.01.2026 and posted to 13.07.2026, observing the statutory six-month cooling-of period.

3. The petitioners thereafter filed I.A. No.2023 of 2023 seeking advancement of the hearing. They stated that they have been living separately for more than one and a half years, got settled all disputes, and decided to dissolve the marriage at the earliest . As per the settlement, the second petitioner agreed to pay Rs.62 lakhs to the first petitioner and to their minor daughter towards their share and permanent alimony, apart from house plots already settled in their favour. The first petitioner agreed to withdraw the criminal cases filed against the second petitioner. In view of the settlement, the matter was sought to be referred for mediation to record the terms.

4. Upon hearing both parties and perusing the material on record, the Court below found no sufficient grounds or urgency to waive the statutory cooling-off period or to advance the matter. It held that the six-month period is mandatory to enable the parties to reconsider their decision and to attempt for reconciliation. The Court further observed that referring the matter for mediation before completion of the said cooling-off period would defeat its object and purpose. Accordingly, I.A. No.203 of 2026 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

5. During the hearing, Mrs. Ayesha Azma S, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that pending the divorce petition, the parties have amicably settled all issues, including property distribution, child care, criminal cases, and permanent alimony. In view of the said settlement, they filed I.A. No.203 of 2026 seeking for advancement of the main petition for grant of a decree of divorce. However, the Court below dismissed the application solely on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory six-month cooling-off period.

6. She further submitted that Section 13-B contemplates a minimum period of six months to enable reconciliation, mediation, and reconsideration of the decision to dissolve the marriage. In the present case, the said object has already been achieved, as the parties have resolved all disputes and have consciously decided to part ways. Therefore, insisting on the cooling-off period would serve no purpose, and the petitioners are entitled to seek advancement of the petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent. She further contended that under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the cooling-off period is directory and not mandatory. Hence, the Court has the discretion to waive the said period in appropriate cases where the parties have settled all issues and the purpose of the provision has already been fulfilled.

7. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal²AIR 2017 SC 4417, 2026:APHC:21296 and Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen¹(2023) 17 SCC 648 Kau