1 2026:CGHC:2429-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 230 of 2025 Yogesh Miri S/o Hira Ram Miri Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Khapridih Police Station Gidhori District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Roshni Sanjay W/o Yogesh Miri Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Chhikhali Police Station - Pusore District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (15.01.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazaar, District- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit no. 84A/2024, whereby the application preferred under 2 Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. 2. The marriage between the parties took place on 03.05.2023 as per Hindu Law and Customs in Village Chhikhali, Police Station- Pusore, District- Raigarh (C.G.), thereafter they could not continue with the marital relationship, and eventually an application preferred by the appellant herein under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was dismissed by the learned family Court. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter was referred to the mediation center of this Court, and the mediation has been successfully completed. The parties have arrived at a compromise on 26.11.2025, on certain terms and conditions, and have filed an application (I.A. No. 01/2026) under section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of mutual divorce, along with an application (I.A. No. 02/2026) to waive the cooling off period of six months. It is further submitted that, as per the settlement, the appellant herein has already paid an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) to the respondent/wife, which she admits to have received. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. It is not in dispute that the parties are living separately since 19.02.2024 and the chances of reconciliation do not exist. The application under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act has been 3 filed before this Court on 14.01.2026 along with the application to waive the cooling-off period of six months which is supported by an affidavit. In this context, the text of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act would be relevant here and quoted below: 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 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 period 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 divorce.” 6. The Supreme Court in a case law reported in (2017) 7 SCC page 746- Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur 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 to the 4 divorce petition 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), 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. 7. Applying the aforesaid principle in the present case, it is evident that the parties are residing separately since 19.02.2024. During mediation, they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce. Part of settlement has already been complied with, as the appellant/husband has already paid an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) to the respondent/wife through demand draft bearing no. 130906 00000 2000 000554 16, 5 which she admits to have received. As a natural consequence it would show that the parties have acted upon their agreement to dissolve the marriage and have come to a firm opinion and arrived to a settlement that they cannot stay together and want divorce. 8. Under the circumstances, the application (I.A. No. 02/2026), the waiver of cooling of the period of six months is allowed in the backdrop of the fact that the parties are residing separately for quite long and since both the parties have consented for mutual divorce, the application (I.A. No. 01/2026) under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed in the terms of settlement. Accordingly it is ordered that the marriage in between the parties solemnized on 03.05.2023 shall stand dissolved by decree of divorce henceforth. The impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The terms of settlement arrived at during the mediation would be the part of the decree so as to enable the parties to comply the terms of compromise, if any. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost(s). 10. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima