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 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 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 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