APHC010£m782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 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 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the impugned dismissal order dated 12-09-2025 passed in I.A.No.1610/2025 in O.P.No.31/2025 on the file of the Honble Principal District Judge, Ongole . 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. ...Petitioners AND NIL ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sathupati Prem Counsel for the Respondent :- The Court made the following order: APHC010511782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (SpecialOriginalJurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THETWENTY 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 RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. BASED EMPLOYEE,R/o.D.No.26-17-12, PERALA,CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA ...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, Ongoleand 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. CounselforthePetitioner(S): 1.SATHUPATIPREM TheCourtmadethefollowing: 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 I.A. No.1610/2025 to waive the statutory period of six months as contemplatedintheSection.The DistrictCourt dismissedthe application vide an order dated 12.09.2025, noting that the judgments that rendered by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh Vs. Haven Kaurh^and Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh^are under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the District Court is not vested such authority to waive the an statutory six-month waiting period. SectionlO-AoftheAct.readsashereunder:- 2. 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 suchmarriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, on the ground that theyhavebeenlivingseparatelyforaperiodoftwoyearsor ’(2017)8SCC746 ^(2018)1SCC62 i 3 / more,thatthey havenotbeenabletolivetogether andthey 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.] Section 10-A Indian Divorce Act is mpah materia with Section13- 3. B of Hindu Marriage Act. The Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra 1) has 4. enumerated the following guidelines to waive off the cooling period ofsix months in favour of the petitioner. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view 5. 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: Section 13 (i) Thestatutoryperiodofsixmonthsspecifiedin B(2),inadditiontothestatutoryperiodofoneyearunder 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; Section 4 of Alleffortsformediation/conciliationincludingeffortsinterms 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; The parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; (ii) (iii) (iv) Thewaitingperiodwillonlyprolongtheiragony. be filed one week after the first (v) The waiver application can motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above the conditionsaresatisfied.thewaiverofthewaitingperiodfor second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned. 7 TheApexCourtheldthattheperiodmentionedin 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 cohabitation and there are chances of possibility of parties resuming alternative rehabilitation. In Santhini case (supra 2), the Apex Court reiterated that inevery 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. 8. 5 assert the AsperthejudgmentsoftheApexcourtthepetitionermust reasons for waiving of six months statutory period. 9. / Suman Beniwat^, , The Supreme Court in Amit Kumar vs 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 HinduMarriageAct.Theapexcourtlaidcertainguidelinesinaddition to those 10. outlined in the Amardeep Singh case. (i) thelengthoftimeforwhichthepartieshadbeenmarried; (ii) howlongthepartieshadstayedtogetherashusbandand wife; (iii) thelengthoftimethepartieshadbeenstayingapart; (iv) thelengthoftimeforwhichthelitigationhadbeenpending; (v) whethertherewereanyotherproceedingsbetweenthe parties; (vi) whethertherewasanypossibilityofreconciliation; (vii) whethertherewereanychildrenbornoutofthewedlock; (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. Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerhasreliedonthe Judgmentof the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Tomy Joseph S/o. Joseph vs. Smiths Tomy D/o Xavlor M Sebastian'*and the relevant paragraph here is reproduced: ^(2023)17SCC748 ''2018LawSuit(Ker)3098 f 6 [8] We do'not think that the learned Judge of the FamilyCourt was not aware of the decision of the Apex Court in Amardeep Singh, it appears from the impugned order thatthe learned Judge of the Family Court was under the impression that the decision in AmardeepSingh isapplicable 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. The present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole, to reconsider the I.A.No.1610 of 2025 in O.P.No.31 of 2025, 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 filed in support of the petition, to waive the statutory period as envisage under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, as expeditiously as possible not later than three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR n ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Ongole , Prakasam District Sathupati Prem Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto Sri. 3. Two CD Copies. Stu r' AL dated 25/09/2025 in CRP modified as per the Operative portion of the order 2025 at paragraph No.12 is I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRP No.2499 of 2025. of the earlier order which Note: The No.2499 of C.O.dated 07/10/2025 in Substitute this amended order in place dispatched on 26/9/2025. was SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR high court DATED;25/09/2025 dated ;07/1 0/2025 amended order CRP NO. 2499 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION petition