THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 690 & 692 of 2024

COMMON ORDER

1. As common issues arise for consideration, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P. No.690 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 11.01.2023 in I.A. No.28 of 2024.

3. C.R.P. No.692 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 11.01.2023 in I.A. No.29 of 2024 filed under 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking waiver of the cooling off period of 4 months.

4. The underlying interlocutory applications are filed in F.C.O.P. No.450 of 2023 before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge – cum – II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – Principal Family Judge Medchal – Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally.

5. Heard, Mandapati Murali Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

6. The main O.P. was filed by petitioner and the respondents herein seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act,1955’). The petitioner herein is the husband.

7. The petitioner and the respondent herein have filed two interlocutory applications i.e., I.A. No. 28 of 2024 under Rule 109(B) of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking advancement of hearing from 30.04.2024 to the date of filing the petition and I.A. No.29 of 2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking waiver of the remaining statutory waiting period of four (4) months.

8. The Court below had after hearing the parties, had passed the impugned docket orders dismissing the interlocutory applications observing that the only ground for seeking waiver was that the petitioner herein was travelling to Dubai for employment, and since evidence could be recorded through Webex, no case was made out to either waive the statutory cooling period of 6 months or to advance the hearing of the case to record evidence.

9. The present revisions are filed aggrieved by the said docket orders.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent has irretrievably broken down; that the petitioner husband herein was scheduled to travel to Dubai for his employment; that prolonging litigation when parties are not interested to retain their matrimonial relationship would only result in perpetuating their agony; that the parties herein on 26.12.2023 had attended mediation and have clearly stated that there was no scope for restitution; and finally that since the parties had already arrived at a settlement the finding of the Court below that further conciliation would bring about reconciliation is erroneous. Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the statutory cooling period would serve no purpose and thus needs to be waived.

11. In support of the above contentions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh Vs.

Harveen Kaur, [(2017) 8 SCC 746] and Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan, [2023 (4) ALD 1]

12. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

13. Before delving into the facts at hand, it is beneficial to discuss the position of law. Section 13B of the Act, 1955 which enables spouses to apply for dissolution of marriage mutually reads as under:

Section 13B – Divorce by mutual consent:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition re