ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the common order dated 10.09.2023 in I.A. No.354 of 2023 and I.A. No.354 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No.545 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Medchal-

Malkajgiri, at Malkajgiri.

2. Heard, Smt. Jyothisri Vankina learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Avinash Reddy learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3. 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.

4. Along with the main O.P. the petitioner and the respondent herein have filed two interlocutory applications i.e., I.A. No.353 of 2023 under Rule 109(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice R/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’)

seeking advancement of hearing and I.A. No.354 of 2023 under Section 151 of the Code seeking waiver of the statutory waiting period of six months.

5. The Court below had passed the impugned common order dismissing the interlocutory applications on two grounds viz., that the petitioner has failed to make out exceptional circumstances to waive the statutory cooling period and that since mediation was yet to be conducted, the discretion vested in the Court ought not be exercised.

6. The present revision is filed aggrieved by the said common order, particularly with regard to the relief in I.A. No.354 of 2023 i.e., waiver of the cooling period of six months

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent has irretrievable broken down; that the spouses were not in speaking terms for the last nine (9) years; and that since the parties had already arrived at a settlement, the finding of the Court below that mediation would bring about settlement is erroneous.

8. It is further contended that the spouses are aged 37 and 43 respectively and therefore prolonged litigation would only diminish their future prospects. Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the statutory cooling period would serve no purpose and thus needs to be waived.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife while fairly admitting to the facts as stated by the petitioner, submits that they would abide by the terms set by this Court while waiving the statutory period.

10. I have taken note of their respective contentions.

11. 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 referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.]

As seen above, sub section (2) forbids a Court from hearing a petition filed seeking divorce by mutual consent before the lapse of six months from the date of presentation. The above sta