IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.11.2025 Harpreet Kaur ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Parminder Singh ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Mr. Yuvraj Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate has appeared and has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent which is taken on record.

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar whereby the application filed for waiving off the statutory period of six months for recording statements of the parties on second motion was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the parties would contend that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.04.2021 and they are living separately since 27.11.2023. It has further been stated that all the possibilities of compromise have been explored, however, there is no chance of the parties living together. It is further the contention that all the disputes between the parties stand settled including alimony. A joint petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce by mutual consent and the first motion statements of both the parties were recorded on 22.09.2025 and the case was adjourned to 30.03.2026 for recording of the second motion statements. It is contended that since the parties are residing separately since 27.11.2023 and there are no chances of any reconciliation, an application for waiving off the six months period for recording of the second motion statements was moved. However, vide the impugned order dated

16.10.2025, the said application was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties would contend that the parties have been living separately since 27.11.2023 and they have not cohabitated since then. Learned counsel would further contend that both the parties have decided to end their marriage by way of mutual divorce and there is no chance of any reconciliation between them. The parties to the lis now want to move on with their lives and as such have prayed for waiving off the six months period. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the compromise arrived at between the parties has already been given effect to and the terms and conditions laid down therein already stand complied with.

5. Heard.

6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur [2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 608] and in view of the fact that the parties have been living separately since 27.11.2023 and that there is no chance of reconciliation and likelihood of the parties living together, this Court deems it appropriate to waive off the statutory period of six months for recording of the second motion statements inasmuch as the waiting period of six months would only prolong the agony of the parties.

7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court concerned on 10.11.2025 at 10.00 am for recording their statements on second motion and for proceeding with the matter further, in accordance with law.

8. The present revision petition stands allowed in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

03.11.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )

Yogesh Sharma JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO