The cooling-off period of six months under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and may be waived in exceptional circumstances, but sufficient grounds must be established.

1. This petition under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22/10/2019 (Annexure P1) passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Morena in Case No.173 of 2019 (HMA), by which the prayer made by the petitioner for waiver of the cooling period of six months has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur , reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 : (AIR 2017 SC 4417) : (AIR 2018 SC (Civ) 41) : (2018 (1) ADR 655) has held that the cooling period of six months is directory and not mandatory and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same can be waived.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

4. It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent have filed an application under S.13 - B of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. It appears that the application was filed for waiver of cooling period on the ground that the father of the petitioner is suffering from heart disease and he has already undergone the operation twice and it is not possible for the petitioner to stay with the respondent as husband and wife. Therefore, the period of six months may be waived. The petitioner has not placed a copy of the application on record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) has held as under: -
"14. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under S.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 (AIR 1986 AP 167), Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy v. Prabhakar Reddy (AIR 1994 Kar 12, Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra v. Smt. Beena Vadra (AIR 1990 Del 146) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dineshkumar Shukla v. Neeta . Contrary AIR 2005 MP 106 view has been taken by Kerala High Court in M. Krishna Preetha v. Jayan Moorkkanatt AIR 2010 Ker 157. It was submitted that S.13 - B(1) relates to the jurisdiction of the Court and the petition is maintainable only if the parties are living separately for a period of one year or more and if they have not been able to live together and have agreed that the marriage be dissolved. S.13 - B(2) is procedural. He submitted that the discretion to waive the period is a guided discretion by consideration of interest of justice where there is no chance of reconciliation and parties were already separated for a longer period or contesting proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned in S.13 - B(2). Thus, the court should consider the questions:
i) How long parties have been married?
ii) How long litigation is pending?
iii) How long they have been staying apart?
iv) Are there any other proceedings between the parties?
v) Have the parties attended mediation / conciliation?
vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes care of alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties?" (Underline Supplied)

6. Thus, the question is that whether the petitioner has made out any ground for waiver of cooling period as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) or not?

7. From the contents of the order, it is clear that the petitioner had sought for waiver of cooling period only on the ground that her father is a heart patient and has already undergone operation twice. That cannot be a ground for waiver of cooling period.

8. The provision of cooling period of six months has been made to give an opportunity to the litigating parties to reconsider their decision so that they may not feel sorry for the decisio