903-wp-5798-2026.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5798 OF 2026 Prashant Sitaram Kirwale And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Throug Law And Judiciary Department ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Wagh Ishwar Kalyan AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JULY 02, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 06.05.2026 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Aurangabad below Exhibit-7 in Petition No.F-148/2026, whereby petitioners prayer for waiver of six months period under Section 13B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came to be rejected. 2. Mr. Wagh, learned advocate appearing for petitioners submits that marriage between petitioner no.1 and 2 was solemnized on 23.03.2025 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since 30.03.2025, petitioners are living separately. All efforts to bring reconciliation have been failed and there is no possibility of bringing them together. Eventually, proceeding was initiated under Section 13B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court. An application below Exhibit-7 was filed for waiver of cooling period of six months. However, learned Principal Judge, Family Court declined to entertain petitioners 2026:BHC-AUG:25655 903-wp-5798-2026.odt (2) prayer on the ground that Family Court has no power to exempt cooling period. Mr. Wagh relying upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 and Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniwal reported in 2022 AIR (SC) 570, submits that Family Court had adequate powers to consider an application for waiver of cooling period. However, Family Court erroneously declined to exercise jurisdiction. He would, therefore, urge this Court to consider application Exhibit-7 and grant waiver of cooling period. 3. Perusal of record tendered before this Court indicate that petitioners have made specific statement that all attempts for reconciliation between parties were failed. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner, on instructions, informs that conciliation between parties was attempted at Family Court and same is failed. It is discernible that petitioners resided together hardly for a period of seven days after marriage. There is no issue from marriage. Eventually, they decided to file proceeding under Section 13B seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent. In this backdrop, reference can be given to observations of Supreme Court in case of Amardeep (supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has given guidelines to consider following questions : “(i) How long parties have been married ? (ii) How long litigation is pending ? (iii) How long they have been staying apart ? 903-wp-5798-2026.odt (3) (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 issues between the parties ?” 4. Similarly, in para 19, following observations are made, which reads thus : “19. 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 13B(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; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA 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. 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 concerned Court. “ 5. Applying aforesaid guidelines to facts of present case, it is discernible that marriage between parties was a complete failure. They could not reside together even for a period of seven days after marriage. There are no other matrimonial proceedings pending between parties. The attempt of conciliation is failed and parties have genuinely decided to separate from each other. Since there is no issue 903-wp-5798-2026.odt (4) from marriage, it is appropriate that parties get separated at earliest and take their further decisions in life. 6. In light of aforesaid factual scenario and applying principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in judgments referred above, this Court finds that petitioners prayer for waiver of cooling period ought to have been considered. In this backdrop, instead of relegating parties to Family Court, this Court deems it proper to allow application. Hence, following order : ORDER (I) The impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad below Exhibit-7 in Petition F-148/2026 is quashed and set aside. (II) The application Exhibit-7 filed before Family Court for waiving of waiting period of six months under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is allowed and six months waiting period is waived. (III) The Family Court shall proceed to pass further orders in Petition No. F-148/2026 within a period of two weeks from today. (IV) Writ Petition stands disposed of. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//