SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 23931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
............ – Appellant
Versus
............ – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CR No. 9434 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9434-2025 (O&M)

Decided on: 22.12.2025

Sandeep Kaur

……Petitioner

Versus

Baljit Singh

……Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Kanda, Advocate for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction

of this Court for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-4)

passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga, whereby the

application filed by the petitioner seeking waiver of the statutory period of

six months for recording the second motion statements in a petition under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

2. Mr. N.S. Kanda, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of

the respondent and has filed his power of attorney.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on

17.12.2017 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Admittedly, the parties

cohabited only for five days after marriage. Due to temperamental

differences, the petitioner started residing separately with her parents and

subsequently shifted to Canada for higher studies, whereas the respondent

continued to reside in India. No child was born out of the wedlock.

4. With the intervention of relatives and respectables, the parties

arrived at an amicable settlement, as there was no possibility of

JITEN SHARMA

2025.12.23 12:53

I attest to the accuracy and

Page N: 1 of 5 Pages

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CR No. 9434 of 2025

reconciliation, and they mutually agreed to seek dissolution of marriage by

consent. Consequently, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act was

filed and first motion statements were recorded on 19.09.2025.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application seeking waiver

of the statutory waiting period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B

(2) of the Act. The said application came to be dismissed by the Family

Court vide the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, primarily on the ground

that there was no sufficient material to substantiate the plea of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage, or that efforts for reconciliation

through mediation and conciliation had failed.

6. Assailing the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the parties have been living separately for the last

approximately eight years, having resided together only for five days. It is

argued that the geographical separation—petitioner residing in Canada and

respondent in India—coupled with the admitted absence of any child and

pendency of other litigation, clearly demonstrates that the marriage has

irretrievably broken down. It is further submitted that insistence on the

statutory waiting period would serve no purpose except to prolong the

mental agony of the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the

petition and prays that the same be allowed.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and

examined the record.

9. The legal position with regard to waiver of the statutory period

under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is no longer res integra. In

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court authoritatively held that the period prescribed under Section 13-B(2)

is directory and not mandatory, and that the Court has discretion to waive

JITEN SHARMA

2025.12.23 12:53

I attest to the accuracy and

Page N: 2 of 5 Pages

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CR No. 9434 of 2025

the same where insistence on the waiting period would only prolong the

suffering of the parties. The relevant observations read as under:

“19. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that

where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out

to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after

considering the following:

i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top