Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., addressed a petition with regard to waiving the cooling period.

Whether the minimum period of 6 months stipulated under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion of passing for a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or can be relaxed in any exceptional situations?

In the instant petition, it was submitted that the wife had instituted the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Later, wife withdrew the proceedings and the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said prosecution was also settled.

Husband and Wife instituted a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and moved an application for waiving cooling period for 6 months. But the said application was rejected by the Civil Judge on the ground that efforts were not made for mediation to reunite the parties.

Trial Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, wherein the Court dealing with the matter, if a case was made out to waive statutory period under Section 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

“(i)statutory period of six months specified S.13-B(2), in addition to statutory period of one year under S. 13-B(1) of separation of parties is already over before first motion itself; 

(ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA, Rule 3, CPC/S. 23(2) of the Act/ S.9 of Family Courts Act to reunite parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

(iii) parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

(iv) waiting period will only prolong their agony.”

In view of the non-fulfilment of (ii) condition, trial court declined to waive the cooling period.

As per the parties, they were referred to mediation and after the same, parties decided to get separated.

High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the statutory period, contemplated under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act was waived.

Hence, the petition was allowed and disposed of. [Pritam Vijaykumar Dargad v. Sujata Pritam Dargad, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 983, decided on 3-07-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Mr. Rathi Swapnil S., Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent / Sole.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.

The facts of the case are such that the marriage of petitioner 1 with petitioner 2 was solemnized on 17-02-2016. Because of differences between them, they started living separately on 10-01-2018. It was almost after two years; application under Section 13 (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on 28-01-2021. The learned Family Court directed for counselling of the parties, which failed, regarding pursuant to which the case was posted for after six months in accordance with Section 13B (2) of the Act, 1955 which provides for cooling period. The petitioners then filed an application for waiving off the cooling period, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The instant writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the impugned order.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that application under Section 13 (1B) of the Act, 1955, praying for decree of divorce on mutual consent has been filed jointly. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been erroneously passed in light of the law laid down in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746.

In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 it was laid down

“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 first motion itself;

(ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA 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 Court observed that the facts present in this case disclose that the petitioners have resided more than one year separately, therefore, the requirement under Section 13B (1) of the Act, 1955, has completed. Thereafter, the petition under Section 13 (1B) of the Act, 1955 has been filed on 28-01-2021, therefore, a further requirement of cooling period of six months under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955, has also been completed. Further, counselling procedure is also over, which has failed.

The Court thus held that, under these circumstances, and as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh (Supra), it was a fit case, in which, the petitioners should have been benefited with the relief as they had prayed for.

In view of the above, impugned order was set aside and petition was allowed.[Raju Kumar In re, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 564, decided on 15-03-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Hot Off The PressNews

Cooling Period

To inculcate discipline and encourage the submission of applications by serious players as also for effective utilisation of regulatory resources, it has been decided to introduce the concept of Cooling Period in the following situations –

  1. Authorised Payment System Operators (PSOs) whose Certificate of Authorisation (CoA) is revoked or not-renewed for any reason; or
  2. CoA is voluntarily surrendered for any reason; or
  3. Application for authorisation of a payment system has been rejected by RBI.
  4. New entities that are set-up by promoters involved in any of the above categories; definition of promoters for the purpose, shall be as defined in the Companies Act, 2013.

The Cooling Period shall be for one year from the date of revocation / non-renewal / acceptance of voluntary surrender/rejection of the application, as the case may be. In respect of entities whose application for authorisation is returned for any reason by RBI, condition of Cooling Period shall be invoked after giving the entity an additional opportunity to submit the application.

During the Cooling Period, entities shall be prohibited from submission of applications for operating any payment system under the PSS Act.


Reserve Bank of India

[Notification dt. 04-12-2020]