IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH ON THE 12^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 780 of 2026 PRADEEP KUMAR OJHA Versus SMT. NITU OJHA W/O SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR OJHA Appearance:

Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakad - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 01/12/2025 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.1290/2025 (HMA) by which the application filed by petitioner and respondent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected.

(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 the parties have filed joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Gwalior. He further submits that an application for waiver of cooling period of 6 months as stipulated in sub-section 2 of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed before the learned Family Court contending therein that statutory period of 6 months is not mandatory, but directory in nature, which can be waived off in the interest of justice.

(4) Learned family court has rejected their application by the impugned order. Hence this petition is filed before this court.

(5) 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.”

(6) 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 24/02/2016. 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 period mentioned in section 13-B(2) is not mandatory and it is only directory in nature and it can be waived off in the interest of justice. But the F