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

CR-7251-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-13.10.2025 Sonu Devi ....Petitioner VERSUS Kamal Sehrawat ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Gagandeep Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhijayant, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Rohtak, whereby the application filed jointly by both the parties seeking waiver of the mandatory cooling-off period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The marriage between the petitioner–wife and the respondent– husband was solemnised on 19.11.2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated, however, no child was born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental and behavioural differences, the parties started living separately w.e.f. 30.01.2024. With the intervention of respectables and relatives, both parties mutually decided to dissolve their marriage and settled all their claims, including permanent alimony of ₹31,00,000/- to be paid by the respondent–husband to the petitioner–wife—₹21,00,000/- at the time of the first motion and ₹10,00,000/- at the time of the second motion. Both parties also undertook not to initiate or pursue any civil or criminal litigation against each other.

3. Consequently, a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak. The statements of the parties under the first motion were recorded on 13.08.2025.

4. Thereafter, both parties jointly moved an application for waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746. The learned Family Court, however, dismissed the said application on the ground that the waiting period is intended to give an opportunity for reconciliation and should not ordinarily be dispensed with.

Submissions of learned counsel for the parties

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all conditions prescribed in Amardeep Singh (supra) stand satisfied in the present case and there is no possibility of reconciliation. The parties have settled all their disputes, including alimony and they have already been living separately for more than one year before filing the first motion petition. Both parties are young and desirous of remarrying, and continuation of the mandatory waiting period would serve no useful purpose but would rather delay their rehabilitation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for waiving off the requisite period of six months.

Findings

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with care.

8. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the six-month period stipulated under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is directory and not mandatory, and the Family Court has the discretion to waive the said period in appropriate cases where:

1. The statutory period of one year separation under Section 13-

B(1) is already over before the first motion;

2. There is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties;

3. All issues including alimony, custody, etc. are amicably settled;

and

4. The waiting period will only prolong the agony of the parties.

9. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in Amardeep Singh (supra). The parties have been living separately since January 2024, far beyond the mandatory one-year period. Their statements under the first motion were recorded on 13.08.2025, after full settlement of all matrimonial and financial issues. There are no pendin