1 CGHC010511972025 2026:CGHC:27875-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 428 of 2025 Hetram Shrivas S/o Shri Devi Prasad Shrivas Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Post Khisora, P.S Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Smt. Pooja Shrivas W/o Shri Hetram Shrivas Aged About 22 Years D/o Lochan Prasad Shrivas, R/o Village Mudpar, Post Khisora, P.S Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Sakreli Kala, Post Jajang, P.S. And Distt. Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Wasim Miyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge 06.07.2026 1. This is an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.13 17:47:49 +0530 2 passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2025 by the learned Principal Judge Family court, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short, ‘the Family Court’), whereby the application filed by appellant for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage was dismissed. 2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized on 23.02.2024 as per Hindu rites and customs. The appellant filed an application before the learned Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The application so filed was resisted by the respondent/wife. 4. The learned Family Court framed the issues. Respective parties led their evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The learned Court decided the issues against the appellant/husband and ultimately dismissed the application. 5. When the parties showed their willingness to settle their dispute amicably, this Court on 25.04.2026 sent the matter to 3 mediation center of this Court for appearance of the parties on 14.05.2026. 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 the mediation report the streedhan of the respondent/wife has been returned by appellant/husband, one time settlement of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Thirteen Lakhs) has also been paid by the appellant/husband to respondent/wife. The mediation report also reflects that a complaint under Section 85 of B.N.S. made before the Police Station Sakti would be withdrawn by the respondent/wife. Agreeing on the above settlement, an application under Section 13(B) of the Act 1955 for grant of divorce on mutual consent has been presented, which indicates that parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably on the following conditions, which are reproduced herein below: 1. यह कि, दो नों पक्षो  किह किदोनों 23.02.2024  ग्राम गुड़पर, जिला गुर-चांप म" किहन्दो रिरकि% रिर से' सेपन्न ह)आ था। 2. यह कि, प्रकि%किदोनों ' द्वार आ'दोनों धार 12, 19, 20 ए 22 घर'ला3 किहसे से' मकिहलाओं  सेरक्षोण अजिधाकिनोंयम 2005 ' %ह%8 4 किकिधा दोण्डि:; प्ररण म 02/2026 दो> किय गुय ह?, कि न्यकिय मजिस्ट्रेB'ट्रे प्रथाम श्रे'ण, सेक्तीE, जिला-गुर-चांप (छ०गु०) म" लाकिJ% ह?, जिसे' प्रकि%किदोनों इसे सेमझौM% ' %ह%8 पसे ला' ला'गु। 3. यह कि. प्रकि%किदोनों द्वार श्रेNखला  ट्रेम्J न्ययलाय, सेक्तीE जिला गुर-चांप (छ०गु०) म" आ'दोनों पत्र अ%गु>% धार 144 भार%य नोंगुरिर सेरक्षो सेकिह% ' %ह%8 दोजिखला किय ह? मनोंनोंय  ट्रेम्J न्ययलाय ' सेमक्षो लाकिJ% ह?, जिसे' प्रकि%किदोनों इसे सेमझौM% ' %ह%8 पसे ला' ला'गु। 4. यह कि, प्रकि%किदोनों द्वार धार 85 J०एनों०एसे० ' अ%>गु% थानों सेक्तीE म" दो ' किरूद्ध किVय% दो> किय गुय ह?, जिसे' प्रकि%किदोनों इसे सेमझौM% ' %ह%8 पसे ला' ला'गु। 5. यह कि, उभायपक्षो भाकिष्य म" किसे भा प्रर  दो-किदो आर प-प्रत्यर प आपसे म" ए ए-दोसेर' ' परिरर ' जिलाय' नोंहZ र"गु' ए किसे प्रर  ला'नों-दो'नों नोंहZ रह'गु। 6. यह कि, Jदो द्वार व्यहर दो क्रम-16-अ/2025 धार 13 ( )  ट्रेम्J न्ययलाय, गुर, जिला गुर-चांप (छ०गु०) म" प्रस्%% किय था किनोंण>य किदोनों 27.10.2025  दो अस्र र किनोंरस्% किय गुय था, जिसे' किरूद्ध मनोंनोंय उच्चां न्ययलाय ' सेमक्षो ( ) . 428/2025 FA MAT No प्रस्%% किय गुय। जिसेम" यह सेमझौM% किनोंम्नों किJन्दोओं पर आ किदोनों 24.06.2026  उच्चां न्ययलाय मध्यस्था% ' न्द्र म" किय  रह ह?। यह कि प्रकि%किदोनों 22.06.2026  स्य ए अपनों' किप% श्रे ला चांनों प्रसेदो श्रेसे ए उनों' दो स्% VफीE खनों ' सेथा ग्राम- मड़पर %हसेला नोंगुढ़ जिला गुर-चांप ण्डिस्था% दो ' किनों किनोंसे से' स्त्रीधानों, ला'नों' गुई था, जिसेम" सेर सेमनों सेप3दो>नोंम 5 किदोनों 22.06.2026 ' अनोंसेर दो ' द्वार प्रकि%किदोनों  लाMट्रेय गुय ह?, जिसे' सेमनों E से3चां ए उभायपक्षो ' गुह ' हस्%क्षोर ' सेथा इसे सेमझौ %पत्र ' सेथा से3चां सेलाग्न किय  रह ह? -1 Annexure D ह?। यह कि, मध्यस्था% ' न्द्र म" आ किदोनों 24.06.2026  स्थाय गुर भात्ता ' रूप म" प्रकि%किदोनों श्रेम% प श्रेसे  दो श्रे ह'%रम श्रेसे ' द्वार मध्यस्था% ' न्द्र यह सेमझौM% ह नों' पर रकिV 13,00,000/- (%'रह लाख रूपय' मत्र) नोंगुदो रकिV ' रूप म" प्रकि%किदोनों नों' प्रप्त किय। (उक्ती प्रप्त रकिV ' प% E म3लाप्रकि% सेलाग्न) -2 Annexure D ह?। सेमझौM% उपर% रकिV रूपय' 13,00,000/- (%'रह लाख रूपय' मत्र) ' ला'नों-दो'नों र%' ह)ए लार फी ट्रे ग्राफी सेलाग्न । -3 Annexure D ह?। उभायपक्षो इसे सेमझौM% पत्र E V%h से' सेहम% हi ए पलानों ' जिलाए किट्रेJद्ध हi सेमझौM% पत्र म" दो गुई V%h  उन्हनों' अपनों स्य E स्'च्छप3> सेहमकि% ए किJनों किसे दोJ, भाय ए लालाचां ' स्र किय गुय ह? उभायपक्षो नों' इसे सेमझौM% पत्र E V%h  पढ़नों'  सेमझौनों' ' पश्चां% अपनों स्%त्र सेहमकि% से' परस्पर ए-दो3सेर' E उपण्डिस्थाकि% म" हस्%क्षोर र किनोंष्पकिदो% किय। उभयपक्ष को समझौता पत्र को एको- एको छा य प्रतिता प्रदा न को गई। 6. Thus the parties have prayed that in terms of the compromise arrived at, the marriage dated 23.2.2024 between the parties may be dissolved by decree of divorce. 6 7. On, 30.06.2026, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of proceedings filed, the parties are directed to appear before Additional Registrar (Judicial) to record their statement on that date. Accordingly their statements were recorded by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) in which they also adhered to the settlement arrived at between them and also stated that they are ready to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent by decree of divorce. 8. Today, the parties had appeared before this Court on instruction they have submitted that they are ready and willing to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent by grant of decree of divorce. They also submits that they are residing for a long period of time. The settlement has been arrived at without any fear, undue influence or coercion. 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 for a long period of time, thus the application under Section 13-B be allowed and the cooling off period as prescribed may be waived off granting decree of divorce by mutual consent. 7 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 residing separately for a long period of time and sufficient period has lapsed. 8 13. Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh (supra) has held 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 9 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. 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 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 10 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 residing separately for a long period of time. 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 23.02.2024 stands dissolved by decree of divorce. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2025 is set-aside. The terms of settlement arrived at 11 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 Shoaib