1 CGHC010274572026 2026:CGHC:32460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 912 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shubhi Sharma W/o Agnimitra Sharma, Aged About 31 Years D/o Rajesh Sharma R/o M, 49, Sector -3, Beside Bijli Office, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, 492013, Raipur P.S. D-D, Nagar Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Agnimitra Sharma S/o Shri Suneet Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o 824, Sunder Nagar 492013, Raipur P.S. D-D Nagar Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shalvin Sharma and Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocates For Respondent : Respondent in person through VC (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 28/07/2026 The present petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the learned Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No. 311/2026 (Agnimitra Sharma v. Smt. Shubhi 2 Sharma), whereby the application preferred by the parties under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months has been dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking its interference. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and that their marriage was solemnized on 07.12.2020 at Raipur. Owing to irreconcilable differences, disputes arose between the parties shortly after the marriage. They have been living separately for the last more than two years and have arrived at a conscious and informed decision that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, leaving no possibility of reconciliation. Consequently, they jointly instituted a petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and simultaneously filed an application under Section 13-B(2) of the Act seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months on 16.03.2026. 4. It is further submitted that, despite the parties satisfying all the prerequisites for waiver of the cooling-off period, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application. It is contended that the parties are well educated, have voluntarily resolved to part ways, and there exists no possibility whatsoever of resumption of cohabitation or amicable settlement. Continuation of the statutory waiting period would, therefore, serve no meaningful purpose and would merely prolong the agony of the parties. 3 5. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate and apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, wherein it has been held that the period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) is directory and not mandatory, and that the same can be waived where the Court is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no likelihood of reconciliation. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be allowed. 6. The aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner have not been disputed by the respondent, who has entered appearance through virtual mode and has unequivocally supported the prayer for waiver of the statutory cooling-off period. Both parties have reiterated their voluntary and unequivocal consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. 7. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the statutory cooling-off period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is liable to be waived in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which read as under: 13-B. Divorce by mutual consent.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce 4 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 Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that 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 the 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 in the meantime, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after 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 of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree." 8. The Supreme Court, in Amardeep Singh (supra), has held that the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act prescribes a statutory cooling-off period of six months before a decree of divorce by mutual consent can ordinarily be granted. The object of this interregnum is to afford the parties an opportunity to introspect, reconsider their decision, and explore the possibility of reconciliation so that the marital relationship may be preserved, if feasible. It has further laid down the governing principles for 5 determining whether the said cooling-off period is mandatory or directory and the circumstances in which the same may be waived in the interest of justice. It has been held in para 19 of the judgment which reads as under: "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), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 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 waiting period will only prolong their agony." 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the parties, who are husband and wife, have jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent before the learned 6 Family Court on 16.03.2026. Along with the said petition, they also jointly preferred an application under Section 13-B(2) of the Act seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months, duly supported by their respective affidavits. The material on record unmistakably demonstrates that the parties have been residing separately for a considerable period and have voluntarily resolved to sever their matrimonial ties. 10. The conduct of the parties leaves no manner of doubt that, despite sufficient time for introspection and reconciliation, they have arrived at a firm, informed and unequivocal decision that their marriage has broken down beyond repair and that there exists no possibility of resumption of cohabitation. Their decision to dissolve the marriage is voluntary, free from any coercion or undue influence, and is the result of their considered choice. In such circumstances, compelling the parties to undergo the statutory waiting period would serve no useful purpose and would merely prolong their emotional distress and agony. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Third Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The joint application preferred by the parties under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months stands allowed. The parties are directed to appear before 7 the learned Family Court on 5th August 2026 for recording of their statements, whereafter the learned Family Court shall proceed to decide the petition for divorce by mutual consent expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.30 12:05:41 +0530