1 CGHC010367082026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1247 of 2026 1 - Yashwant Golcha S/o Jayantilal Golcha Aged About 36 Years R/o House No.64, Shree Dada Moorse Garden Near Grace Hospital,coonoor Nilgiri - 643102, Tamil Nadu, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shravi Golcha W/o Yashwant Golcha D/o Poonam Chand Pincha Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.557, College Road, Ward No.15, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh - 4934451. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 24.09.2026 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 58-A/2026, whereby the application for waiving out the cooling period of six months has been rejected. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.09.24 14:36:07 +0530 2 2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2019 as per their rites and customs. After some time of marriage, some differences occurred between them and they are started living separately from the month of July, 2020. Both of them have jointly filed an application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act, 1955) praying for divorce on mutual consent. Along with the application, they have also filed an application for waiving off cooling period of six months provided under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955. The application under Section 13- B of the Act, 1955 was filed on 04.08.2026 before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund was registered as Civil Suit No. 58-A/2026. The learned Family Court vide its order dated 12.08.2026 rejected the application for waiving off the cooling period of six months and fixed the case for mediation on 05.09.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case also. Even the coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Smt. Pooja Purohit Vs. Sumer Purohit, decided on 09.05.2018 in WP227 No. 353 of 2018 waived of the cooling period of six months relying upon the judgment of Amardeep (Supra). She further submitted that the parties are very well aware of their well being and they have decided to reside separately and after getting the divorce and proceeded in their lives. Therefore, the order passed by learned Family court dated 12.08.2026 may be set aside to the extent of rejection of the application for waiving off cooling period of six months. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She too has submitted that both the parties are agreed to reside separately for which they have filed an application for grant divorce on mutual consent and also filed application for waiving off mandatory cooling period of six months. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. It is necessary to note the provisions of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads 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 may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised 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 solemnised 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." 4 7. In the case of Amardeep (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- 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." 8. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pooja Purohit (Supra), it is also held that :- “8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the facts would suggest that immediately after the marriage took place on 01.02.2017, both the parties i.e., the husband and wife have jointly applied for divorce by stating that they are living separately since 04.02.2017 and the application for mutual divorce was filed on 05.02.2018. The order sheets also records the fact that the conciliation proceeding to reunite the parties has failed on 26.03.2018 and after filing of application on 05.02.2018, another application to waive the period of six months was filed on 5 02.04.2018 wherein the parties had stated that they could not go along with each other and after the divorce they want to remarry. Therefore, by all necessary implications, it goes to show that even after rethinking, the parties have come to firm opinion and arrived at a settlement that they cannot stay together and want the divorce. As a natural consequence it can be said to be a fair submission on the part of both the petitioner and respondent that they want to remarry after decree of divorce. Having stated so it further fortifies the intention to get separated and the waiting period will only prolong their agony.” 9. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Amardeep (Supra) and Smt. Pooja Purohit (Supra), on the first date of motion, the statutory period of one year under Section 13-B(1) of the Act of 1955 and statutory period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955, must be over and it is only after that the further waiting period has been directed to be cut-short. Hence, the present case has to be amend accordingly. On perusal of the application filed by the parties under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it would reveal that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2019 and from the months of July, 2020, they are residing separately, whereas they have filed the application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 04.08.2026. On this date, the duration of marriage of the parties has already crossed the fix period of one year and therefore, the requirement of filing the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has already been completed. Further that the cooling period as required under Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is of six months has also passed. The sufficient period has already been passed since from the date when the parties 6 are residing separately. Hence, in this case, the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amardeep (Supra) and the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pooja Purohit (Supra) are applicable. Hence, this Court is of the view that the staturory period of six months may be waived off in view of the consideration of the case of Amardeep (Supra) and Smt. Pooja Purohit (Supra). 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by learned Family Court to the extent of rejection of the application for waiving off the mandatory cooling period of six months is set aside and the cooling period of six months is waived off. The learned Family Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law on the application filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 on its own merits. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika