IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5636-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 25.08.2025 Simran Sood ....Petitioner VERSUS Inder Vir Singla @ Inderveer ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala in petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 09.05.2024 at Gurudwara Sahib, Village Sullar, District Patiala. After the marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife only for few days. On account of disputes between them and their families, they separated on 15.05.2024. Subsequently, with the intervention of respectables, they amicably settled all their claims, including return of dowry articles and gold ornaments, and nothing remained outstanding between them.

3. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) was filed seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The statements of the parties at first motion were recorded on

01.07.2025 and the matter was fixed for second motion on 03.01.2026. During pendency, an application was filed by the parties seeking waiver/condonation of the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Act on the grounds that the mother of petitioner No.1-Simran Sood is ailing and desires to see her daughter’s matrimonial life settled during her lifetime, and further that petitioner No.2-Inder Vir Singla intends to settle abroad but cannot proceed due to pendency of this litigation.

4. The learned Family Court dismissed the said application holding that the case did not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, [(2017) 8 SCC 746], as the parties had not remained separated for the requisite statutory period of one and a half years before the recording of the first motion, nor were any efforts at mediation/conciliation ever undertaken.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the statutory period under Section 13-B(2) is directory in nature and can be waived, relying upon Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) and Rahul Taneja v. Manisha Taneja, 2025(3) RCR (Civil) 537.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) held that the six months’ waiting period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) is directory and not mandatory, and may be waived if the following conditions are satisfied:

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 XXXIIA 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.

7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the parties lived together for only five days and thereafter separated. Their statements in first motion were recorded on 01.07.2025, barely one year and two months after marriage. Thus, the statutory requirement of one and a half years of separation before the first motion was not satisfied. Further, no attempt at mediation or conciliation was ever undertaken, as envisaged under law.

8. Though the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and no issues relating to chi