IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 194 of 2026 AYUSH SHUKLA Versus SMT JUHI TRIPATHI Appearance:

Shri Vikas Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ram Autar Singh-Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 1539/2025 (HMA), whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner and the respondent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was taken on record and the learned Trial Court listed the matter for final consent statement on 30.06.2026, i.e., after a period of six months.

(2) It is undisputed that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down as many attempts have been made for settlement and reunion of the parties but all failed and thus parties have decided not to live together and agree for mutual dissolution of marriage. The parties are not fulfilling any marital obligations towards each other and they are living separately since long time and there is no slightest of possibility of reconciliation.

(3) Counsel for the petitioner submits that both parties have filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court at Gwalior. It is further submitted that although the application under Section 13-B of the HMA has already been filed, the learned Trial Court has listed the matter on 30.06.2026, i.e., after the statutory period of six months for final consent statement. The petitioner contends that the said six-month cooling-off period is liable to be waived in the interest of justice. Hence, the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking appropriate relief.

(4) The Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur reported in (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 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following:-

i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(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 32-A 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 Court concerned.

20. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13B(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.”

(5) After considering the above decision in the case of Amardeep Singh (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 28/11/2019. They are not fulfilling any marital obligations towards each other and further they are living separately since long time and there is no possibility of reconciliation because both the parties have decided that they will not live together and they are agreed for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. The per