As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
decision in Amardeep Singh (supra) has been taken
note of, and explained by this Court in Amit Kumar
v. Suman Beniwal – (2023) 17 SCC 648. Paras 18 to 21
of the same states as follows:
“18. Where there is a chance of
reconciliation, however slight, the cooling
period of six months from the date of
filing of the divorce petition should be
enforced. However, if there is no
possibility of reconciliation, it would be
meaningless to prolong the agony of the
parties to the marriage. Thus, if the
marriage has broken down irretrievably, the
spouses have been living apart for a long
time, but not been able to reconcile their
differences and have mutually decided to
part, it is better to end the marriage, to
enable both the spouses to move on with
life.
21. The Family Court, as well as the High
Court, have misconstrued the judgment of
this Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen
Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis
that this Court has held that the
conditions specified in para 19 of the said
judgment, quoted hereinabove, are mandatory
and that the statutory waiting period of
six months under Section 13-B(2) can only
be waived if all the aforesaid conditions
are fulfilled, including, in particular,
the condition of separation of at least
one-and-half year’s before making the
motion for decree of divorce.”
When the parties have taken a conscious decision
to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13B of the Act, there is no point in keeping
the marriage continuing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO . 80 1 /202 6
[@ SLP [C] NO.3775/2026]
MISHA SOMANI Vs RITURAJ SOMANI
Dated: FEBRUARY 02, 2026.
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
This is a case where both the parties were at ad
idem in getting a divorce by mutual consent. The
High Court by misconstruing the judgment passed by
this Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur –
(2017) 8 SCC 746, was pleased to reject the request
made by the parties, for waiving of the cooling
period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13B(2)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’). As rightly submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
decision in Amardeep Singh (supra) has been taken
note of, and explained by this Court in Amit Kumar
v. Suman Beniwal – (2023) 17 SCC 648. Paras 18 to 21
of the same states as follows:
“18. Where there is a chance of
reconciliation, however slight, the cooling
period of six months from the date of
filing of the divorce petition should be
enforced. However, if there is no
possibility of reconciliation, it would be
meaningless to prolong the agony of the
parties to the marriage. Thus, if the
marriage has broken down irretrievably, the
spouses have been living apart for a long
time, but not been able to reconcile their
differences and have mutually decided to
part, it is better to end the marriage, to
enable both the spouses to move on with
life.
19. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
(2017) 8 SCC 746, relied upon by the Family
Court and the High Court, this Court held
(SCC p.756, paras 19-20):
"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 13-B
(2), it can do so after considering the
following:
(i) The statutory period of six months
specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition
to the statutory period of one year under
Section 13-B(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 32-A
Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section
9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the
parties have failed and there is no
likelihood of success in that direction by
any further efforts;
(iii) The parties have genuinely settled
their differences including alimony,
custody of child or any other pending
issues between the parties;
(iv) The waiting period will only prolong
their agony.
The waiver application can be filed one
week after the first motion giving reasons
for the prayer for waiver. If the above
conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the
waiting period for the second motion will
be in the discretion of the court
4
concerned.
20. Since we are of the view that the
period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not
mandatory but directory, it will be open to
the court to exercise its discretion in the
facts and circumstances of each case where
there is no possibility of parties resuming
cohabitation and there are chances of
alternative rehabilitation."
20. The factors mentioned in Amardeep Singh
v. Harveen Kaur (supra), in Paragraph 19
are illustrative and not exhaustive. These
are factors which the Court is obliged to
take note of. If all the four conditions
mentioned above are fulfilled, the Court
would necessarily have to exercise its
discretion to waive the statutory waiting
period under Section 13B (2) of the
Marriage Act.
21. The Family Court, as well as the High
Court, have misconstrued the judgment of
this Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen
Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis
that this Court has held that the
conditions specified in para 19 of the said
judgment, quoted hereinabove, are mandatory
and that the statutory waiting period of
six months under Section 13-B(2) can only
be waived if all the aforesaid conditions
are fulfilled, including, in particular,
the condition of separation of at least
one-and-half year’s before making the
motion for decree of divorce.”
When the parties have taken a conscious decision
to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13B of the Act, there is no point in keeping
the marriage continuing.
Considering the above, we are inclined to hold
that the order passed by the High Court is liable to
be set aside and the same is, accordingly, set
aside.
Consequently, we are inclined to grant a decree
of divorce by mutual consent by invoking our power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, a decree for divorce shall be drawn
up, and the terms of the Settlement Agreement at
Annexure P/1 before us, shall form part of this
order.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
...........................J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
...........................J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 02, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment