121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2025 GURJEET SINGH ......PETITIONER Vs.

LAXMI .........RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Akash Khurana, and Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda, whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) seeking waiver of the statutory period of six months for recording the second motion statement has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has contended before this Court that the petitioner, Gurjeet Singh, along with his wife, Laxmi (the respondent herein), filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce through mutual consent.

3.1 It was averred that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.10.2017. However, no child was born out of the said wedlock. On account of temperamental differences, the parties could not continue to live together and have been residing separately since the year 2022. With the intervention of respectable members of the society, the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, they filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Annexure P-1). As per the terms of mutual settlement, nothing remains due from either party towards the other on account of past, present, or future maintenance, including permanent alimony. Both parties have further agreed not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other in future.

3.2 The statements of the first motion of both the parties were recorded on 14.05.2025 (Annexures P-2 and P-3). However, for recording the statements of the second motion, the case was adjourned to 15.11.2025. It was further submitted that there are no chances of reconciliation and, therefore, the parties moved an application under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking condonation of the statutory period of six months, in the interest of justice, by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3.3 It is further submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda, failed to appreciate the fact that the parties have been residing separately for the past more than four years and that there are no chances of reconciliation. Virtually, the marriage in question has irretrievably broken down and stands wrecked for all practical purposes. At the same time, it is submitted that both the parties are young and they wish to complete their education and settle in life. In such circumstances, the application under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, ought to have been allowed and the mandatory period of six months for recording the statements of the second motion ought to have been waived. It is also relevant to point out that no consummation of marriage has taken place between the parties for a continuous period of more than one year.

3.4 Thus, it is submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda, wrongly took the view that, at this stage, it cannot be said conclusively that there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation between the parties during the waiting period, in the absence of exhaustive steps being taken for mediation. As such, the learned Family Court wrongly dismissed the application seeking waiver of the statutory period of six months, vide order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-5). Accordingly, a prayer is made that the order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) be set aside and necessary directions be issued to the learned