APHC010511782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2499/2025 BETWEEN: 1. GODAVARI VINOD, S/o.(LATE) KRISHNA, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/o. D.No.1-10-46, VELGAVARI STREET, 5TH WARD, BAPATIA MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. KAMANCHI PRIYANKA @ GODAVARI PRIYANKA, W/o. GODAVARI VINOD, D/o. K. RADHAKRISHNA, GOVERNMENT CONTRACT BASED EMPLOYEE, R/o.D.No.26-17-12, RAMANAGARAM PERALA, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NIL, a ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to I.A.No.1610/2025 In O.P.No.31/2025. from the file of the Honble Principal District Judge, Ongole and set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 12-09-2025 I.A.No.1610/2025, in O.P.No.31/2025 and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SATHUPATI PREM The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petitioner/s filed O.P. No. 31 of 2025 under Section 10-A of Indian Divorce Act before the learned Principal District Judge Court for grant of divorce by mutual consent. Subsequently filed an I.A. No.1610/2025 to waive the statutory period of six months as contemplated in the Section. The District Court dismissed the application vide an order dated 12.09.2025, noting that the judgments that rendered by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh Vs. Haven Kaurṅ1 and Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh2 are under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the District Court is not vested such authority to waive the statutory six-month waiting period. 2. Section 10-A of the Act, reads as hereunder:- Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or 1 (2017) 8 SCC 746 2 (2018) 1 SCC 62 3 more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in Sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn by both the parties in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and making such inquiry, as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of decree.] 3. Section 10-A Indian Divorce Act is in pari materia with Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra 1) has enumerated the following guidelines to waive off the cooling period of six months in favour of the petitioner. 5. 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 13 B(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; 4 (ii) All efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32A 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. (v) The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned. 7. The Apex Court held that the period mentioned in Section 13.B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. 8. In Santhini case (supra 2), the Apex Court reiterated that in every matrimonial dispute an endeavour has to be made for the parties to restore their relationships and to make an attempt for reconciliation before processing the disputes in the legal framework. 5 9. As per the judgments of the Apex court the petitioner must assert the reasons for waiving of six months statutory period. 10. The Supreme Court in Amit Kumar vs Suman Beniwal3, , discussed the discretion of the court to waive the statutory six-month waiting period for filing a divorce motion under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The apex court laid certain guidelines in addition to those outlined in the Amardeep Singh case. (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; (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. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Tomy Joseph S/o. Joseph vs. Smitha Tomy D/o Xavior M Sebastian4 and the relevant paragraph here is reproduced: 3 (2023) 17 SCC 748 4 2018 Law Suit (Ker) 3098 6 [8] We do not think that the learned Judge of the Family Court was not aware of the decision of the Apex Court in Amardeep Singh, it appears from the impugned order that the learned Judge of the Family Court was under the impression that the decision in Amardeep Singh is applicable only to a petition for divorce filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that it is not applicable to a petition for divorce filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. 12. The present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the Principal District Court to reconsider the case after following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, along with judgment of the Kerala High Court and the reasons that assigned in the affidavit in support of the petition to waive of the statutory period as envisaged under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, as expeditiously as possible not later than two months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 25.09.2025 Harin 7 80 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2499 OF 2025 Date: 25-09-2025 Harin