1 Date of reserved for orders : 08.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading :13.07.2026 APHC010386342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3602] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 99/2024 Between: 1. KONAKALA (PAMARTHI) VENKATA NAGALAKSHMI,, W/O. PAMARTHI SOBHAN BABU, D/O.KONAKALA PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.32-36- 13/1, MACHAVARAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PAMARTHI SOBHAN BABU, S/O. PAMARTHI VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. NEAR GOWDA RAMALAYAM, KOTHURU TADEPALLI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT 2 Appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act against orders aggrieved by the order and decree of the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada in F.C.O.P. No.589 of 2021, dt.19-06-2024. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G N V PULLA RAO The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 99/2024 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Family Court Appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing the order and decree dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Vijayawada in F.C.O.P. No.589 of 2021 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as ‘The Act, 1955’) to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 02.03.2017 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the petition. 2. The parties are being referred to as ‘petitioner’ and ‘respondent’ as arrayed in the petition before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.07.2017 at Malineni Nageswara Rao Library Function Hall, Vijayawada as per Hindu rights and caste customs and they have no children. Further, since 11.08.2017, they have been living separately. The petitioner has filed F.C.O.P. No.589 of 2021 under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act, 1955 and Section 7 of Family Court Act against the respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 02.03.2017 and at the culmination of enquiry, 4 the trial Court dismissed the petition vide order 19.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ wife preferred the instant appeal to set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial Court and pass decree of divorce. 4. During pendency of this appeal, petitioner filed two applications in I.A. No.2 of 2026 and I.A. No.3 of 2026 seeking permission to amend the prayer from dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty to dissolution of marriage dated 02.03.2017 by mutual consent and to record terms and conditions of memorandum of understanding respectively. 5. Admittedly, the grounds for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) and Section 13 B of the Act, 1955 are different. However, it is settled principle of law that the petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act, 1955 can be converted into divorce petition by mutual consent of Section 13 B of the Act, 1955. The judgment in K.Omprakash Vs K.Nandini1 underscores the judiciary role in interpreting statutes in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice and equity and it potentially paves the way for more flexible judicial practices in matrimonial cases, encouraging both parties to amicably resolve their differences without being hampered by procedural rigidity. Further, reinforces the transformative nature of marital laws, aligning legal practices with contemporary societal norms that 1 AIR 1986 AP 167 5 recognize the evolving institution of marriage. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that Section 13-B(2) should be interpreted as a directory provision rather than a mandatory one, thereby allowing the immediate dissolution of the marriage based on mutual consent without strict compliance with the waiting period in appellate contexts and with the afore mentioned reasoning, granted the divorce decree, emphasizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the absence of any likelihood of reconciliation. The said principle is followed by this Court in Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh vs Immidisetty Anitha2. 6. In this regard, it is opposite to mention here that in a recent case in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan3 the constitution bench of Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that cooling of period is not to stretch the already disintegrated marriage, or to prolong the agony and misery of the parties when there are no chances of the marriage working out and that the waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the Court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair. Further, held at para Nos.26 and 27 thus: 26. However, there are cases of exceptional hardship, where after some years of acrimonious litigation and prolonged suffering, the parties, with a view to have a fresh start, jointly pray to the court to dissolve the marriage, and seek waiver of the need to move the second motion. On account of irreconcilable differences, 2 CMA 651 of 2007 3 (2023) 14 SCC 231 6 allegations and aspersions made against each other and the family members, and in some cases multiple litigations including criminal cases, continuation of the marital relationship is an impossibility. The divorce is inevitable, and the cooling off period of six months, if at all, breeds misery and pain, without any gain and benefit. These are cases where the object and purpose behind sub-section (2) to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act to safeguard against hurried and hasty 18 decisions are not in issue and question, and the procedural requirement to move the court with the second motion after a gap of six months acts as an impediment in the settlement. At times, payment of alimony and permanent lump sum maintenance gets delayed, while anxiety and suspicion remain. Here, the procedure should give way to a larger public and personal interest of the parties in ending the litigation(s), and the pain and sorrow effected, by passing a formal decree of divorce, as de facto the marriage had ended much earlier. 28. The time-gap is meant to enable the parties to cogitate, analyse and take a deliberated decision. The object of the cooling off period is not to stretch the already disintegrated marriage, or to prolong the agony and misery of the parties when there are no chances of the marriage working out. Therefore, once every effort has been made to salvage the marriage and there remains no possibility of reunion and cohabitation, the court is not powerless in enabling the parties to avail a better option, which is to grant divorce. The waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair.” 7. Finally, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 providing for cooling off period is directory and in the facts and circumstances of a case, the statutory period can be waived of. 8. In the present case at hand also, the wife filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was dismissed. 7 During appellate stage both parties settled their issues and accordingly, filed the petitions to amend the prayer and to grant divorce by mutual consent. As seen from the record, since 2017, they have been living separately and they do not have children. Petitioner is working as an employee and respondent is practicing advocate. This Court also made efforts by advising the parties to continue their matrimonial tie. But in view of their very strange relations and long duration of desertion, both parties did not show interest to live together and absolutely there are no chances of reunion. Finally, petitioner filed I.A. No.2 of 2026 and both parties filed I.A. No.3 of 2026. As per the memorandum of understanding, both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage dated 02.03.2017 by mutual consent and petitioner-wife shall not claim any maintenance or permanent alimony or any other properties from the respondent-husband. 9. This Court came to conclusion that the legislature intended to provide a mechanism for the easy dissolution of Hindu marriages by mutual consent, marking a shift from viewing marriage as an indissoluble sacrament to a contractual agreement. 10. To put an end to the litigations, both the petitioner and respondent have taken decision to dissolve their marriage instead of continuing the present litigation. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and long duration of desertion, this Court is of the opinion that 8 cooling of period can be waived and accordingly, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed. 12. In the result, this Family Court Appeal is allowed by granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage dated 02.03.2017 between the petitioner and respondent and the memorandum of understanding shall form part and parcel of the judgement. There are no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ______________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM 08.07.2026 knl Whether the order is : ✓ Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No ✓ Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 9