Case Note & Summary
This civil revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a docket order dated 12.04.2026 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Prakasam District, Ongole in I.A.No.203 of 2026 in F.C.O.P.No.12 of 2026. The petitioners, a wife and husband, had married on 04.12.2022 and had a daughter on 02.09.2023. Due to matrimonial disputes, they had been living separately for about one year and were not on cordial terms. They filed FCOP No.12 of 2023 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. The petition was taken on file on 12.01.2026 and posted to 13.07.2026 observing the statutory six-month cooling-off period. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application seeking advancement of the hearing, stating that they had been living separately for more than one and a half years, had settled all disputes, and had decided to dissolve the marriage at the earliest. As per the settlement, the second petitioner agreed to pay Rs.62 lakhs to the first petitioner and their minor daughter towards their share and permanent alimony, apart from house plots already settled in their favour, and the first petitioner agreed to withdraw criminal cases filed against the second petitioner. The matter was sought to be referred for mediation to record the terms. The Family Court dismissed the application, holding that the six-month period is mandatory to enable the parties to reconsider their decision and attempt reconciliation, and that referring the matter for mediation before completion of the cooling-off period would defeat its object and purpose. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the present civil revision petition. The core issue before the High Court was whether the Family Court has the discretion to waive or deviate from the six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners' counsel argued that the parties had amicably settled all issues including property distribution, child care, criminal cases, and permanent alimony, and that the object of Section 13-B(2) had already been achieved. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal and Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, counsel contended that the cooling-off period is directory and not mandatory, and that the court has discretion to waive it where parties have settled all issues and the purpose of the provision has been fulfilled. The High Court examined the affidavit filed by the petitioners and found that all inter se disputes had been amicably settled, including permanent alimony, custody and welfare of the minor child, and distribution of properties, leaving no subsisting issues for adjudication. The Court reiterated that the object of Section 13-B(2) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties to reconsider their decision and explore the possibility of reunion. However, when the parties have been living separately for a considerable period, have settled all supplementary issues, and have consciously decided to part ways, continuation of the statutory period would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong their agony. The law does not mandate the preservation of a matrimonial bond that has irretrievably broken down and where there is no likelihood of reconciliation. In the given facts, the High Court found that the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court for waiver of the cooling-off period stood fulfilled and the settlement appeared voluntary and genuine. Accordingly, the civil revision petition was allowed, the docket order dated 12.04.2026 was set aside, and the Family Court was directed to take up the petition for advancement and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were closed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Mutual Consent Divorce - Cooling-Off Period Directory Not Mandatory - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13-B(2) - The Family Court dismissed an application to waive the six-month cooling-off period in a mutual consent divorce, holding the period mandatory; the High Court, relying on Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, (2023) 17 SCC 648 and Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417, held that Section 13-B(2) is directory and can be waived where parties have amicably settled all disputes, including permanent alimony, child custody, and property, and there is no possibility of reconciliation. The Court directed the Family Court to take up the advancement petition and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage expeditiously. Held that continuing the statutory period would serve no useful purpose and would prolong the parties' agony (Paras 9-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court has discretion to waive or deviate from the six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Final Decision
The civil revision petition was allowed. The docket order dated 12.04.2026 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Prakasam District, Ongole in I.A.No.203 of 2026 in F.C.O.P.No.12 of 2026 was set aside. The Family Court was directed to take up the petition for advancement and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.
Law Points
- cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955 is directory not mandatory
- waiver permissible when parties settle all issues including alimony
- child custody
- and property
- continuation of statutory period would prolong agony
- object of Section 13-B(2) is to provide opportunity for reconsideration and reunion
- not to preserve irretrievably broken marriage
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction available to correct erroneous Family Court order
