1 2026:CGHC:25557-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 55 of 2025 Smt. Ankita Sharma W/o Shri Achal Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Shri Arun Sharma, V.V. 59, Parthiv Apartment, Parthiv Province, Sarona, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Achal Sharma S/o Shri Jogiraj Sharma Aged About 37 Years Occupation Private Service R/o 176, Milan Apartment, Ring Road, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur (Maharashtra). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 22/06/2026 1. This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in H.M.A. No. 76/2024 whereby the application under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1955) filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2 2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the appellant/wife and respondent/husband. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to some differences, the parties eventually separated and the appellant/wife filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court inter-alia pleading that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent/husband. 4. The learned Family Court framed three issues. 5. The respondent/husband remained ex-parte before the learned Family Court and no written submission was filed nor any evidence was led. The appellant/wife examined her witnesses. 6. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned Family Court decided the issues against the appellant/wife and dismissed the application during the filing of this appeal. Notice of this appeal was issued and respondent/husband entered his appearance before this Court. 7. When the parties showed their willingness to settle their dispute amicably, this Court on 08.09.2025 sent the matter to mediation center of this Court for appearance of the parties on 08.09.2025. accordingly, mediation proceedings were drawn in the mediation center of this Court. The mediation report has been submitted and it has been observed that the parties have amicably settled their dispute on certain conditions. As per mediation report the parties 3 have agreed to get the decree of divorce by mutual consent. It was also agreed that the daughter of the parties shall be allowed to meet the respondent/husband between 12 PM- 5 PM on last Sunday of each month. It was also agreed that once in a week, the respondent/husband would be permitted to talk to the daughter on mobile through call/ video call. The daughter is allowed to talk to the respondent/husband at any point of time. It has been further agreed that the appellant/wife shall not file any case for maintenance and cases pending against each other would be withdrawn by them. 8. Thereafter, an application under Section 13-B of Act, 1955 was filed by the parties. On 13.05.2026, the parties appeared before this Court and they were sent to Additional Registrar (Judicial) for recording of their evidence. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) recorded the statement of the parties in which it is stated by the parties that they are agreed to the settlement arrived at mediation center dated 13.02.2026 and it is not possible for them to live together and they do not want to continue their marriage. The settlement has been arrived at without any fear, undue influence or coercion and they agreed to dissolve their marriage as per the settlement. 9. Learned counsel for the parties submits that as the parties are not willing to continue their marriage and they agreed upon to get the same dissolve by mutual consent and they are living separately from the year 2022, the application under Section 13-B be allowed 4 and the cooling off period as prescribed may be waived off granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. 10. To buttress their submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746, judgment passed by this Court in case of Manish Verma Vs. Pooja Verma reported in 2022 SCC Online CHH 1434, Satish Vs. Namita 2026 SCC Online CHH 460 and judgment dated 05.05.2010 in FA(M) 16 of 2007 parties Manoj Kedia Vs. Anu Kedia. Further reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh Vs. Immidisetty Anitha reported in Manu/AP/0928/2025. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The Factual narration stated above indicate that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and willing to get their marriage dissolve by mutual consent. For that purposes, the mediation proceedings were carried out and the mediation was successful. Later on, statements of parties were also recorded by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) in which they adhere to the settlement arrived at in the mediation. It is submitted by the parties that they are living separately from each other since 2022 meaning thereby about 4 years have lapsed. 13. Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh (supra) has held 5 that in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced and however, Section 13-B (2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grant divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation. The Supreme Court has further laid down the following principles at para 19: “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 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following: (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13- B(2), 13-B(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 32-A 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 waiving period will only prolong their agony. 14. Relying upon the judgment of Amardeep Singh (supra), this Court in case of Manish Verma (supra) and Satish (supra) allowed the application under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 and granted decree of dissolution of marriage to the parties. 15. This Court in case of Manoj Kedia (supra) also relying upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of K. Omprakash vs. K. Nalini AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 167 granted 6 the decree of divorce on mutual consent waiving off the cooling of period under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955. 16. Andhra Pradesh High court in case of Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh (supra) held that petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955 can be allowed to be converted into the divorce petition by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 at the appellate stage and also held that the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 providing for cooling of period is directory and not mandatory, the statutory period can be waived of. 17. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement and settled legal position, on examination of facts of this case, it is quite vivid that the parties are living separately from the year 2022. They have entered into compromise and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. For that purposes, they have also filed an application under Section 13-B of Act, 1955. Their statements have also been recorded by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) adhering to the settlement arrived at before the mediation proceedings. In light of the above facts, keeping the petition pending for 6 months would not serve any fruitful purpose as such this Court is inclined to waive off the cooling off period of 6 months. 18. In view of the above, it is ordered that the marriage solemnized between the parties on 12.12.2014 stands dissolved by decree of divorce. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 7 21.10.2024 is set-aside. The terms of settlement arrived at during the mediation would be the part of decree so as to enable the parties to comply the terms of compromise. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to cost. SD/- SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima