HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL No. - 139 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Himanshu Singh, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being decided at the admission stage. 3. By means of this first appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the appellant has prayed to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1177 of 2025 (Nikhil Kumar Vs. Sapna Chaurasiya), with further prayer to direct the learned trial court to fix short date moving second motion in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that despite all possible efforts of the appellant and the respondent and their family members, marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and the parties have mutually opted to live apart. The appellant and respondent Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Indra Jeet Yadav, Satish Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nikhil Kumar .....Appellant(s) Smt. Sapna Chaurasiya .....Respondent(s) were living together as husband and wife till 30.03.2024 and thereafter, due to some ideological differences and temperamental disparity between them, they got separated and are living apart since 30.03.2024. 5. The parties have filed a joint application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") bearing R.S. No.1177 of 2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. The first motion has been moved by the parties on 08.04.2025 in which they clearly stated about their intention to get dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow fixed the date for 09.10.2025 for moving second motion. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the Family Court, the dates i.e. 23.05.2025, 09.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 were fixed for mediation but both the parties did not participate in the mediation proceedings as they are willing the decree of mutual divorce. 6. One joint application has been filed by both the parties on 30.07.2025 being Application No.8-ga in the aforesaid Regular Suit to get waived off the cooling period but the learned Family Court rejected the aforesaid application vide order dated 30.07.2025, the impugned order, only for the reason that since the parties have not appeared before the mediation proceedings, therefore, that application may not be allowed. 7. Attention has been drawn towards the judgement of the Apex Court in re; Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270, wherein the Apex Court vide para-27 provides as under:- "27. For exercise of the discretion to waive the statutory waiting period of six months for moving the motion for divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court would consider the following amongst other factors : - i. the length of time for which the parties had been married; ii. how long the parties had stayed together as husband and wife; iii. the length of time the parties had been staying apart; iv. the length of time for which the litigation had been pending; v. whether there were any other proceedings between the parties; FAPL No. 139 of 2025 2 vi. whether there was any possibility of reconciliation; vii. whether there were any children born out of the wedlock; viii. whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children, etc." 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that under the Act also, in respect of the family matters, Parliament has made several provisions for reconciliation. Under Section 23(2) "before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties". (emphasis supplied) 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act further provides for methods to facilitate the process, which reads as follows: "23. (3) For the purpose of aiding the court in bringing about such reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the court thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person nominated by the court if the parties fail to name any person, with directions to report to the court, as to whether reconciliation can be and has been, effected and the court shall in disposing of the proceeding have due regard to the report." (emphasis supplied) 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the judgement and order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.30 of 2022, Smt. Anamika Srivastava Vs. Anoop Srivastava, wherein vide paragraphs no.27 & 29, this Court observed as under:- "27. No doubt Section 9 of the Family Courts Act casts an obligation upon the Family Court to make efforts for settlement. However, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, and force the parties to engage in mediation where the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Section 9 itself states that the Court is required to make an endeavor to assist and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement. It also FAPL No. 139 of 2025 3 says that this has to be done in consistence with the nature and circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is clear that reference of the parties to mediation is not compulsorily required where the facts and circumstances of the case showcase that no purpose would be served out of such reference. The endeavor to get the matter settled is compulsory, but the reference to mediation by the Family Court itself is not. 29. In the case of Amit Kumar (Supra) the Apex Court has observed where marriage between the parities has irretrievably broken down and the parties have mutually opted to part ways, it is better to dissolve the marriage. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report are extracted below:- "18. The object of Section 13B(2) read with Section 14 is to save the institution of marriage, by preventing hasty dissolution of marriage. It is often said that "time is the best healer". With passage of time, tempers cool down and anger dissipates. The waiting period gives the spouses time to forgive and forget. If the spouses have children, they may, after some time, think of the consequences of divorce on their children, and reconsider their decision to separate. Even otherwise, the cooling period gives the couple time to ponder and reflect and take a considered decision as to whether they should really put an end to the marriage for all time to come. 19. 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 the life." (emphasis supplied)" 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that when the parties are willing to obtain decree of mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Act and they are not willing to participate in the mediation proceedings, especially when they have been living apart since 30.03.2024, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending except to prolong their agony. 12. In view of what has been considered above including the case laws so cited, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1177 FAPL No. 139 of 2025 4 of 2025 is set aside. The statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is waived. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 22.09.2025. The Family Court will pass a decree of divorce, in accordance with law, at the earliest. 14. No order as to costs. September 17, 2025 RBS/- FAPL No. 139 of 2025 5 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench