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, 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.

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 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