##PAGE1##

CR No. 9683 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9683-2025 (O&M)

Decided on: 22.12.2025

Manvir Kaur

……Petitioner

Versus

Harjot Singh

……Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Ms. Sumati Jund, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of the present revision 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 16.12.2025

(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, SBS

Nagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking waiver of the

statutory waiting period of six months for recording the second motion

statements in a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondent and has filed his power of attorney.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on

25.08.2019 according to Sikh rites and rituals. The parties cohabited for

about three and a half years. Due to temperamental differences, the

petitioner started residing separately with her parents since May 2023,

JITEN SHARMA

2025.12.23 12:53

I attest to the accuracy and

Page N: 1 of 5 Pages

integrity of this document

CR No. 9683 of 2025

whereas the respondent-husband shifted to the United States. No child was

born out of the wedlock.

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

arrived at an amicable settlement, having realized that there was no

possibility of reconciliation between them. Accordingly, they mutually

agreed to seek dissolution of marriage by consent. A joint petition under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and the first motion

statements were recorded on 11.11.2025.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application seeking waiver

of the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of

the Act for recording the second motion statements. However, the learned

Family Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 16.12.2025,

observing that there was no material on record to substantiate the plea

that there was no scope for reconciliation and that no effort had been

shown to have been made for settlement through mediation or

conciliation.

6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the parties have been residing separately for the

last approximately two years and seven months. It is contended that the

petitioner is residing in India, whereas the respondent is residing in the

United States, making any possibility of reunion completely illusory. It is

further submitted that no child was born out of the wedlock, no other

litigation is pending between the parties, and insistence on the statutory

waiting period would only prolong the agony of the parties without serving

any useful purpose.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not

oppose the petition and joins in prayer for allowing the same.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

JITEN SHARMA

2025.12.23 12:53

I attest to the accuracy and

Page N: 2 of 5 Pages

integrity of this document

CR No. 9683 of 2025

9. The issue with regard to waiver of the statutory waiting period

under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act stands settled by the

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

746, wherein it was 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 1