IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 2nd OF March, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 1151/2023 BETWEEN:-

SMT. SAPNA KALRA W/O SHRI SUNIL KALRA D/O SHRI VIJAY PAHUJA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD ALANKAR PALACE, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI R.K.SHASHTRI, ADVOCATE)

AND SUNIL KALRA S/O SHRI PRAKASH KALRA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 19 J, SUNDER VIHAR COLONY, SCHEME NO. 103, KESARBAGH ROAD, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT ( SHRI VIJAY KUMAR NAGPAL,ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in HMA case no.2614/2022 whereby, the petitioner’s application seeking waiving of cooling off period of 6 months has been rejected on the ground, that requisite period of 18 months has not lapsed after the parties started residing separately.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ wife and respondent/

husband got married on 24.06.2021, however due to irreconcilable differences, they started residing separately from 06.07.2021 and thus they resided together for 12 days only and since all the efforts of reconciliation failed, both of them have filed an application on 10.12.2022 under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act of 1955“). On 17.02.2023, an application under section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 seeking waiving of cooling off period of 6 months was also filed which has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court vide impugned order dated

17.02.2023.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the application for dispensing with cooling off period of 6 months was filed prior to the completion of 18 months which has led the learned Judge of the Family Court to dismiss the application as the application was filed on

17.02.2023.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a settlement has already taken place between the parties and the respondent/husband has already paid a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs. Four Lac Eighty Thousand only) to the petitioner.

Counsel has also relied on the decisions rendered by this Court passed in M.P. No.2900/2021, dated 20.09.2021 (Mrs. Prakriti Sinha Vs. Mohit Raj Shrivastava) and in M.P.No.3725/2021, dated 26.10.2021 (Vashdev @ Anil Sachdev Vs.Smt.Mayra Sachdev) wherein this Court has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur reported as AIR 2017 SC 4417 for allowing the waiver of cooling off period, and thus, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO submitted that the rejection of petitioner’s application under section 13- B(2) of the Act of 1955 was erroneous. It is submitted that even as of now it has already been more than 18 months from the date the parties are residing separately.

Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that 18 months of separation were not compelled as on 20.12.2022, i.e., the date of first motion; whereas the application u/s.13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 was filed on 17.02.2023 which was beyond the period of 18 months from the date of separation. Thus, it is submitted that the period of six months ought to have been waived by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petition may be allowed as parties have arrived at a settlement and no purpose would be served to keep the matter pending. It is also submitted that both the parties are educated that the petitioner/wife is a house wife and the respondent/husband is a businessman.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record The following chronological events emerge in the present case:-