C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

04.07.2022

Pronounced on

22.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2022

1.K.Mohanarangan

2.Virudambigai @ Vishwa Priya

... Petitioners

Vs.

NIl

... Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal order dated

19.04.2022 in I.A.No. No. Nil of 2022 in FCOP No.NIl of 2022 now

numbered as FCOP.No.64/2022 on the file of the Family Court,

Tiruvannamalai.

For Petitioners

: Mr.P.Pandiyaraj

For Respondents : Nil

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of

the learned Judge, Family Court, Thiruvannamalai, dated 19.04.2022 made in

unnumbered I.A. in FCOP.No.64/2002.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2022

2. The revision petitioners are the couples who have presented this

petition for divorce by mutual consent under Sec.13(B). After presenting the

petition for mutual consent this Interlocutory Application has also been filed to

waive the mandatory cooling period of 6 months under Sec.13(B)(2)(i) and the

said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that this Revision Petition has

been preferred.

3. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the

couples were married on 23.05.2002 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs; the

couples got a male child by name Tharun Bharathi, who was born on

25.05.2003; due to misunderstanding, the couples were living separately for

16 years; however during the year 2007 itself, the husband filed a petition for

divorce in MC.No.130 of 2007 at Bangalore which was later transferred to

Thiruvannamalai and renumbered as HMOP.No.31 of 2009; since the revision

petitioners come to an understanding to get divorce by mutual consent, the

earlier petition was withdrawn; several reconciliation made between the

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2022

couples did not fructify and now they have filed the petition for divorce by

mutual consent; the long period of 16 years of marriage did not bring out any

mutual understanding between the couples and the cooling period is not going

to serve any useful purpose; hence the same should be by reversed; the learned

trial Judge without considering the irretrievable loss of marriage and invented

its own reasons for not waiving the cooling period. In support of the above

contention of the revision petitioner, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 [ Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur]

was cited.

5. In the above said judgement, it is held that the possibility to waive

the cooling period can be considered by the Family Court provided in the

opinion of the Court there is no possibility for reconciliation. The relevant part

of the judgement is extracted as below:

“ (2017) 8 SCC 746

[Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur]

13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under

Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court where

proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is supported

by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakash vs. K.

Nalini, Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs. Prabhakar Reddy11,

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2022

Delhi High Court in Dhanjit C.R.P.No.93 of 2021 Vadra vs. Smt. Beena

Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs.

Smt. Neeta13. Contrary view has been taken by Kerala High Court in M.

Krishna Preetha vs. Dr. Jayan 10 AIR 1986 AP 167 (DB) 11 AIR 1994 Kar

12 (DB) 12 AIR 1990 Del 146 13 AIR 2005 MP 106 (DB) Moorkkanatt. It

was submitted that Sect