HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6420 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ankit Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 06.10.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.4, Family Court, Lucknow in Petition No.2761 of 2025, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the petitioners' request for waiver of six months' cooling off period has been turned down. 3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has stated that the petitioners have incorrectly impleaded the State of U.P. and Additional Principal Judge, Court No.4, Family Court, Lucknow as opposite parties to the petition. 4. The State of U.P. is not a party to the proceedings pending before the Family Court. Further the Family Court cannot be made an opposite party to the petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mrinal Tripathi, Ankit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Priayanka Sharma And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. There is force in the submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, however as the court has examined the merits of the petition also, the petition is not being dismissed on this solitary ground and I proceed to deal with the merits of the matter as well. 6. The petitioners have filed a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on 01.08.2025. The record reveals that the parties had entered into a settlement on 26.05.2025, wherein they had agreed to severe their relationship that started by their marriage held on 27.11.2022. 7. In spite of the aforesaid agreement having been entered into between the parties on 26.05.2025, the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has not been filed by them immediately thereafter and it was filed on 01.08.2025. 8. On 06.10.2025 the petitioners filed an application praying for waiver of six months' cooling off period and the only averment for waiver of period made in the application is that the petitioner no.2 is serving at Delhi and he has to take leave to attend the proceedings before the Family Court. 9. There is no averment in the entire petition as to how the statutory six months cooling off period will adversely affect the interest of the petitioners or interest of justice. 10. The averment made in para 11 of the application that the petitioner no.2 has to repetitively take leave to visit Lucknow due to pendency of the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act is apparently incorrect as the only mandatory appearance of the parties before the family court in proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act is at the time of first motion i.e. filing of the petition and in the second motion i.e. date fixed for final disposal of the petition after six months since its filing, which in the present case is 01.02.2026. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the A227 No. 6420 of 2025 2 petitioner no.2 has to come to Lucknow to attend the proceedings of mediation. The appearance in mediation proceedings is not compulsory and it is voluntary. Therefore, the mere referral of a dispute for mediation is no ground for waiving the mandatory cooling off period. 12. Although, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniwal: (2023) 17 SCC 648 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated that in appropriate cases the court may exercise discretion to waive the statutory cooling of period of six months under certain circumstances, the statutory period can only be waived in exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. 13. When the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional circumstance showing that some serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners in case the petition is decided after six months mandatory statutory cooling off period, this court find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, passed by learned Family Court. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. November 4, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6420 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench