IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 132 Navjot Kamboj Jaspinder Kaur CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur whereby the application petitioner ‘Navjot Kamboj vs Jaspinder Kaur’ for condon mandatory/cooling period 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act vide the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P application (Annexure P respondent for waiving off the mandatory/cooling period of six CR-1553-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1553 of 2025 Date of decision : Navjot Kamboj Versus Jaspinder Kaur CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Payal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur whereby the application dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P petitioner and the respondent in case No.DMC/22/2025 titled as t Kamboj vs Jaspinder Kaur’ for condon mandatory/cooling period of six months as stipulated under Section B of Hindu Marriage Act, has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P application (Annexure P-3) filed on behalf of petitioner and respondent for waiving off the mandatory/cooling period of six 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1553 of 2025 Date of decision :-20.03.2025 …..Petitioner …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate Ms. Payal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the impugned 4) passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur whereby the (Annexure P-3) filed jointly by the in case No.DMC/22/2025 titled as t Kamboj vs Jaspinder Kaur’ for condoning the six months as stipulated under Section has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that vide the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P-4) the 3) filed on behalf of petitioner and respondent for waiving off the mandatory/cooling period of six VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document months as stipulated under Section 13 been declined. respondent were married on 27.2.2021 according to Sikh rites. Within less than one month of the marriage they have been living separately as they could is born out of their wedlock. The respondent has to travel to Canada on 04.4.2025 as evident from her Air Ticket (Annexure P impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure off the cooling period is that between the parties. Learned counsel points out that even (CRM-M 15.5.2024 (Annexure P Sections 406, 498 District Ferozepur has been filed by the petitioner, in which notice of motion for 27.5.2025 has been issued by the co Court vide order dated prayed that there is no ground is made out for refusal of waiving of the cooling period of requisite six months as stipulated under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act filed Power of Attorney on record. CR-1553-2025 months as stipulated under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage A been declined. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 27.2.2021 according to Sikh rites. Within less than one month of the marriage they have been living separately as they could is born out of their wedlock. The respondent has to travel to Canada on 04.4.2025 as evident from her Air Ticket (Annexure P It is further submitted that the only reason given in the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure the cooling period is that there is criminal litigation pending between the parties. Learned counsel points out that even M-10766-2025) for quashing of the FIR No.18 dated 15.5.2024 (Annexure P-1 in CRM-M-10766 Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC at Police Station NRI Ferozepur, District Ferozepur has been filed by the petitioner, in which notice of motion for 27.5.2025 has been issued by the co Court vide order dated 25.2.2025 (Annexure P prayed that there is no ground is made out for refusal of waiving of the cooling period of requisite six months as stipulated under Section B of Hindu Marriage Act. Notice of motion. Ms. Payal Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance and Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent. The same is taken on record. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/wife 2 B of Hindu Marriage Act, has Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 27.2.2021 according to Sikh rites. Within less than one month of the marriage, since 21.3.2021 itself they have been living separately as they could not pull along. No child is born out of their wedlock. The respondent has to travel to Canada on 04.4.2025 as evident from her Air Ticket (Annexure P-5). submitted that the only reason given in the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P-4) for refusing to waive there is criminal litigation pending between the parties. Learned counsel points out that even petition 2025) for quashing of the FIR No.18 dated 10766-2025), registered under B IPC at Police Station NRI Ferozepur, District Ferozepur has been filed by the petitioner, in which notice of motion for 27.5.2025 has been issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this (Annexure P-2). It is accordingly prayed that there is no ground is made out for refusal of waiving of the cooling period of requisite six months as stipulated under Section cate has put in appearance and on behalf of respondent. The same is taken Ld. Counsel for the respondent/wife does not dispute the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the above sa behalf of the parties to be correct. dated 24.2.2025 shows that the learne waive off “Further, only amount of permanent the parties, but the same is yet to be paid by the petitioner no.1 to the petitioner no.2, which is decided to second motion statements. Further, criminal litigation is still pending between the parties and divorce can only be granted if there is nothing pending against the parties. made an application Centre, Ferozpur divorce cannot be granted in casual and hasty manner without giving an opportunity to sort out the differences arising out between the parties within of recording second motion statements that there are no chances of compromise, reconciliation and rehabilitation between the parties.” Amardeep Sin 899268 has held that 13B(2) of the can be waived off at the discretion of the court. In wa CR-1553-2025 submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the above said submissions are true and correct Heard. Perused the case file. The record evidences the above said assertions made on behalf of the parties to be correct. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 shows that the learned F f the cooling off period of six months on the ground that: Further, only amount of permanent alimony the parties, but the same is yet to be paid by the petitioner no.1 to the petitioner no.2, which is decided to pay at the time of recording of second motion statements. Further, criminal litigation is still pending between the parties and divorce can only be granted if there is nothing pending against the parties. Moreover, the parties have not made an application for sending the reference to the Mediation Ferozpur for reconciliation and rehabilitation because divorce cannot be granted in casual and hasty manner without giving an opportunity to sort out the differences arising out between the parties within a period of six months so as to make ensure at the time of recording second motion statements that there are no chances of compromise, reconciliation and rehabilitation between the parties.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark judgement of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # has held that the waiting period enshrined under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory in nature can be waived off at the discretion of the court. In wa 3 submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and in fact, affirms id submissions are true and correct. record evidences the above said assertions made on A perusal of the impugned order Family Court has declined to period of six months on the ground that: alimony has been settled between the parties, but the same is yet to be paid by the petitioner no.1 to the pay at the time of recording of second motion statements. Further, criminal litigation is still pending between the parties and divorce can only be granted if there is Moreover, the parties have not for sending the reference to the Mediation for reconciliation and rehabilitation because divorce cannot be granted in casual and hasty manner without giving an opportunity to sort out the differences arising out between the a period of six months so as to make ensure at the time of recording second motion statements that there are no chances of compromise, reconciliation and rehabilitation between the parties.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark judgement of gh v. Harveen Kaur, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # the waiting period enshrined under Section Act is directory in nature, and the same can be waived off at the discretion of the court. In waiving off the said VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document mandatory period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court points for consideration to be borne in mind, which are as follows: “13. …… 14. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and there is only prolong their agony. XXX XXX XXX 18. ……… matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section following : Section under Section the first motion itself; terms of Order 32A Rule 3 CP the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. 19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons As already noted above, in the present case on 27.2.2021; and have been living separately since 21.3.2021 i.e. since the past four years and marriage; no child is born CR-1553-2025 mandatory period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court points for consideration to be borne in mind, which are as follows: 13. …… Thus, the Court should consider the questions: i) How long parties have been married? ii) How long litigation is pending? iii) How long they have been staying apart? iv) Are there any other proceedings between the parties? v) Have the parties attended mediation/conciliation? vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes care of alimony, custody of issues between the parties? 14. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will only prolong their agony. XXX XXX XXX 18. ……… 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 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 32A Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 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 genuin including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. 19. 19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. As already noted above, in the present case on 27.2.2021; and have been living separately since 21.3.2021 i.e. since the past four years and after less than one month of the marriage; no child is born out of their wedlock 4 mandatory period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delineated certain points for consideration to be borne in mind, which are as follows: – Thus, the Court should consider the questions: i) How long parties have been married? is pending? iii) How long they have been staying apart? iv) Are there any other proceedings between the parties? v) Have the parties attended mediation/conciliation? vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes care of alimony, custody of child or any other pending 14. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory (2), it can do so after considering the i) the statutory period of six months specified in (2), in addition to the statutory period of one year (1) of separation of parties is already over before ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in C/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 iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. 19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first for the prayer for waiver.” As already noted above, in the present case the parties were married on 27.2.2021; and have been living separately since 21.3.2021 i.e. after less than one month of the out of their wedlock. No doubt, no VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document application for mediation has been filed by the parties. However, it is my considered view that in futility the fact th together. Canada, where she ordinarily resides air ticket (Annexure P 13B of the HMA (Annexure P terms and conditions of settlement respondent shall not oppose the petition filed by the petit quashing an amount of the above mentioned FIR and at the time of final disposal of the divorce petition under section 13 B of the the above, it is clear that compromise and Thus, keeping in mind the above facts, the waiting period will only discretion has been granted to the courts to assist parties seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and to exercise discretion to waive statutory cooling possible and issues are amicably settled, prolonged stress of pending divorce proceedings. be such a case. CR-1553-2025 application for mediation has been filed by the parties. However, it is my considered view that any mediation would have been an exercise keeping in mind the above said long the fact that the parties have no child whose interest would bind them It is also undisputed that the respondent desires to go back to Canada, where she ordinarily resides; and air ticket (Annexure P-5)for date of travel 4.4.2025 The file further reveals that the petition under section 13B of the HMA (Annexure P-1), was filed on 17.1.2025 terms and conditions of settlement/ compromise respondent shall not oppose the petition filed by the petit quashing the FIR no.18 dated 15.5.2024; and the petitioner shall pay an amount of ₹25,00,000/- to the respondent the above mentioned FIR and at the time of final disposal of the divorce petition under section 13 B of the the above, it is clear that the parties have arrived at a genuine compromise and all terms and conditions Thus, keeping in mind the above facts, it is my considered view that the waiting period will only prolong the agony of the parties. It is also undisputed position in law that judicial discretion has been granted to the courts to assist parties seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and to exercise discretion to waive statutory cooling-off period possible and issues are amicably settled, prolonged stress of pending divorce proceedings. be such a case. 5 application for mediation has been filed by the parties. However, it is any mediation would have been an exercise keeping in mind the above said long term of separation, and at the parties have no child whose interest would bind them is also undisputed that the respondent desires to go back to and as is also evident from the for date of travel 4.4.2025. The file further reveals that the petition under section 1), was filed on 17.1.2025. As per the / compromise contained therein, the respondent shall not oppose the petition filed by the petitioner for 18 dated 15.5.2024; and the petitioner shall pay to the respondent “after the quashing of the above mentioned FIR and at the time of final disposal of the divorce petition under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act.”From the parties have arrived at a genuine all terms and conditions have been settled thereby. it is my considered view that prolong the agony of the parties. is also undisputed position in law that judicial discretion has been granted to the courts to assist parties seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and to exercise discretion when reconciliation is not possible and issues are amicably settled, thereby freeing parties from prolonged stress of pending divorce proceedings. I find the present to VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Annexure P Family Court, Ferozepur is hereby set aside is hereby Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur to decide the No.DMC/22 by the parties herein under Section 13 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent of hearing parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur on second motion statements March 20 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CR-1553-2025 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur is hereby set aside is hereby allowed with a direction to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur to decide the No.DMC/22/2025 titled as ‘Navjot Kamboj vs Jaspinder Kaur’ by the parties herein under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent of hearing - which is preponed from 29.8.2025 to 27.3.2025 parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur on 27.3.2025 second motion statements. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 20, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 6 the impugned order dated 24.2.2025 ) passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur is hereby set aside; and the present petition with a direction to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ferozepur to decide the petition /2025 titled as ‘Navjot Kamboj vs Jaspinder Kaur’ filed B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent, on the next date from 29.8.2025 to 27.3.2025. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Principal 27.3.2025 for recording their Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.03.21 17.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document