Courts may waive statutory cooling off periods under exceptional circumstances only.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners – who are husband and wife - challenge Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Kottarakkara, which has rejected their request for waiving the statutory cooling off period under the Statutory Scheme - so as to enable them to obtain divorce through mutual consent - as had been applied by them through Ext.P1 application.

2. Smt.Radhika Ramachandran – learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that the learned Family Court has rejected her clients’ plea merely saying that the period of 18 months from the date of separation between the couple will expire only on 20.03.2026. She argued that, it is now well settled that, in cases of exceptional hardship to parties, Courts are authorized and even enjoined to waive the statutory cooling off period. She explained that, since the petition for divorce has been filed with the consent of both the spouses, there is no impediment in the cooling off period being waived; particularly since, if it is not so done, the employment opportunity of the 2^nd petitioner – the wife - would be severely prejudiced. She asserted that this itself is a ground to impel hardship on behalf of the wife.

3. We have examined Ext.P3 – which is the order impugned; and notice that the learned Family Court has rejected the plea of the petitioners for the reason that the 18 months' period after their marriage will expire only on 20.03.2026. The ratiocination of the learned Family Court – though not so recorded specifically in the impugned order - appears to be that, at least a period of one year ought to have elapsed before the petition for mutual consent could have been filed, as per Section 13B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955; and thereafter six more months for the cooling off period is required.

4. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [ (2017) 8 SCC 746 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar factual situation and set forth the criteria to be followed by courts to decide applications filed to waive the cooling off period. The opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is available in paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which is extracted under for clarity of reference:

18. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under S.13B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

i) the statutory period of six months specified in S.13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under S.13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA R.3 CPC/S.23(2) of the Act/S.9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

5. Later, in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal [ (2023) 17 SCC 648 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, again adverting to the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, declared:

7. In terms of the proviso to Section 14 , the court may, on application made to it, in accordance with such rules as may be made by the High court, allow a petition to be presented before one year has elapsed since the date of marriage, on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the appellant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. In this case, the petition under Secti