IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Sushmita ….Appellant versus Ankit ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for appellant.

Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate, for respondent.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Present appeal is directed against the order dated

02.01.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Rewari, whereby, though an application under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the ‘Act’) seeking permission to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Act within one year of the date of marriage was allowed, yet the matter was adjourned to 10.10.2025 for recording of first motion statements of the parties on the ground that they were not residing separately from each other for a period of one year or more, as per the provisions of Section 13B (1) of the Act.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 05.10.2024. However, differences cropped up between the couple immediately after the marriage. Both the parties have been living separately since 08.10.2024. Consequently, they filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act, seeking decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. Along with the said petition, they also filed an application under Section 14 (1) of the Act, with a prayer that mandatory period of one year before filing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, be waived off. Although the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 02.01.2025, allowed the said application, yet adjourned the matter to 10.10.2025 for recording of first motion statements of the parties by holding that there was no provision under Section 13-B (1) or Section 14 of the Act, stipulating any situation, under which, statutory period of one year of separation before filing of the petition could be waived off.

3. Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate, for the respondent-husband is present in Court and files his power of attorney (Vakalatnama), 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 since 08.10.2024 and have already decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent.

4. From the perusal of file, it is borne out that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.10.2024. From the very beginning, due to temperamental differences, parties lived together only for three days, but did not consummate the marriage. Hence, parties have been living separately since 08.10.2024 as there are no chances of reconciliation and the marriage between them has irretrievably broken down. 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