IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Jasvir Singh ….Appellant versus Savita Kumari ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate, for appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate, for respondent.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Present appeal is directed against the order dated

06.02.2025 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Camp Court at Mukerian, whereby an application filed by the parties for waiving off the mandatory period of six months for recording of second motion statement, was dismissed.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 26.05.2021 according to Hindu rites at village Haler Jungath, Tehsil and District Pathankot. Out of this wedlock, one male child namely, Nityam Singh, was born on 21.09.2022. However, due to temperamental differences, the parties could not reside together. They have been living separately since March, 2022. Consequently, they filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. In that petition, first motion statements of the parties were recorded and thereafter, the matter was posted for 03.07.2025 for recording the second motion statements of the parties. During the pendency of the said petition, the parties filed a joint application with a prayer to waive off the statutory/cooling period of six months for recording the second motion statements, as stipulated under Section 13- B (2) of the Act. However, the learned Family Court dismissed the said application, vide impugned order dated 06.02.2025 holding that the parties were in haste to get their marriage dissolved, whereas the statutory period of six months was given to rethink about their decision.

3. Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate, for the respondent-wife is present in Court and files his power of attorney, which is taken on record. He does not controvert the facts, as stated in the petition. It is stated on behalf of both the parties that the parties are living separately and have already decided to dissolve their marriage.

4. From the perusal of file, it is borne out that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.05.2021. The parties have been living separately since March, 2022 and that the marriage was never consummated thereafter. Perusal of file further shows that the parties have settled all their claims as to Istridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony etc. with their own consent out of Court in every manner, whatsoever, and it was further settled between them that there shall be no claim of anyone of them over any right, title and interest in the property of each other as well as their parents and neither shall any litigation be filed against each other.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgments in the case of Mandeep Kaur Bajwa v. Chetanjeet Singh Randhawa, reported as 2015 (40) RCR (Civil) 198 as well as on Manpreet Kaur v. Gagandeep Singh (FAO-3897-2022 (O&M) decided on 15.12.2022) to argue that in the aforesaid cases, considering the marriageable age of the parties as well as the fact that the parties had lived together as husband and wife for about 3- 6 months after marriage, their application filed under Section 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year to present the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, before expiry of one year, was allowed. The parties therein were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the sole issue which arises for our consideration is, whether it is a fit case for grant of permission for waiving off the mandatory/cooling period of six months?

7. In order to answer this issue, it would be apt to reproduce Sections 13-B and 14 of the Act w