IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 22^nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 21344 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. PRITISH NANDI S/O PRASANT KUMAR NANDI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED PRAGATISHEEL COLONY NARMADA ROAD BEHIND VIJAYA NURSING HOME JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. HARSHA NANDI W/O PRITISH NANDI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TECHNICAL RECRUITER AT AKCELLENCE INFO SOLUTIONS R/O H.NO. 806, BAI KA BAGHECHA, FOURTH STREET, GHAMAPUR, JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SALEEM REHMAN - ADVOCATE)

AND NOT MENTION NOT MENTION NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NOT MENTION )

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

ORDER

The husband and wife have jointly filed an application under section 10-A of the Divorce Act, 1869, before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in Case No.CCB/16/2009.RCSA.91/2022 for waiving off the cooling period, which has been rejected.

Signature Not Verified SAN It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband and wife are of Indian domicile and are Christians by faith and religion. On 23.7.2018 both of them were lawfully married. Marriage certificate dated 29.8.2018 was issued. Since their marriage was not successful, therefore, they have decided to obtain the decree of divorce by mutual consent. Both of them have decided to seek divorce and to live separately, therefore, it was prayed that pendency of divorce petition may be waived off.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no possibility of compromise between the parties in future.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4417, has considered the question whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') for a motion for a passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or directory and whether such period can be relaxed in exceptional situation. The object of the provisions contained in section 13B of the Act of 1955 was considered by the Apex court and it was held as follows :-

"7. In Amardeep Singh (supra), after analysing the provision contained in Section 13B(2)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows: "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 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 13-B(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 re-unite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

Signature Not Verified SAN iii) the parties have genuinely settled their O.P.(FC) No.577/2018 differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver.

20. 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.

21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation."

9.