The cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is discretionary and can be waived in the interest of justice when reconciliation is not possible.

ORDER

Both husband and wife are present in person before this Court.

The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.242/2025 HMA whereby the application preferred by the parties for waiving off the cooling period of six months has been rejected.

2. The petitioner-husband contends that the marriage between him and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 16.04.2019 as per Hindu rituals and rites and due to irreconcilable differences arose between them, they parted ways in the month of July, 2019. They had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 05.03.2025. The permanent alimony decided between them is to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- which is kept with one Man Singh Rajput who is joint relative of both the parties, which shall be received by the respondent-wife.

3. The petitioner-husband submits that both the parties have expressed their intention to live separately and there is no possibility between the parties to come together and co-habit, therefore, the trial Court may be directed to record the statement of the parties and conclude the proceedings by waiving off the cooling period of six months.

5. The respondent-wife supported the submissions made by husband and submits that she has no objection, if the petition is allowed and the cooling period of six months is waived off.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur , (2017) 8 SCC 746 , has held as under :

"19. 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 Section 13 B (2), it can do so after considering the following :

i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 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 Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/ Section 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. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the concerned Court".

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is found that the marriage between both parties was solemnized on 16.04.2019, but soon after the marriage differences crept up between the two and now they are living separately and there is no possibility of reconciliation between them, therefore, both of the parties have mutually decided not to live together and they had agreed for the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent in accordance with the terms of settlement emunerated in the application and thus, had asked for waiving of the cooling period of six months, but the said prayer had been rejected.

9. The period mentioned under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and it is only discretionary in nature and it can be waived off in the interest of justice, but the learned trial court without considering the circumstance and the breakdown point of matrimonial relationship had rejected the joint application filed by both the parties, which appears to be not proper. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained and it deserves to be set-aside.

10. In view o