Date of reserved for orders : 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 14.08.2026 Date of uploading : 18.08.2026 APHC010016852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3602] FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 26/2026 Between: 1. SMT. NAKKA UMA,, W/O NAKKA VARAHALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.31-29-78/1, VENKATESWARA METTA DOWN ROAD, GEET SANGEET ROAD ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. NAKKA VARAHALA REDDY, S/O N.APPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. RESIDING LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE, YELLAMANCHILI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, AADHAR NO.3423 7646 9708. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section________ against orderspleased to allow the Family Court Appeal with costs and set- aside the Decree and order dated 24.12.2025 passed in F.C.O.P.No. 497 of 2017, on the file of Hon'ble Judge Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to SUSPEND the Decree and Order dated 24.11.2025 passed in 2 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 F.C.O.P No. 495/2017 on the file of the Hon‟ble Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/Respondent to amend the main petition filed under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in FCOP No. 495 of 2025 on the file of the Hon‟ble Judge Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Petition filed under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marrige Act by striking out the relief sought in FCOP No. 495 of 2025 on the file of the Honble Judge Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and grant divorce by mutual consent as per the terms and compromise in the above appeal and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to permit the parties to record compromise in F.C.A. 26 of 2026 by incorporating the relief as Mutual Divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by striking out the relief of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)((ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in FCOP No. 495 of 2025 on the file of the Hon‟ble Judge Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and grant divorce by mutual consent and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S B V RAMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 26 OF 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sunitha Gandham) This Family Court Appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent assailing the order and decree dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam in F.C.O.P. No.495 of 2017 filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as „The Act, 1955‟) in dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 08.03.2007. 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 respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner, their marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2007 at Vaisakhi Jala Udyanavanam Garden View Hall, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and they have one child. Further, since 22.12.2007, they have been living separately. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No.495 of 2017 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 08.03.2007 and at the culmination of enquiry, the trial Court allowed the petition vide order 24.11.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/wife preferred the instant appeal to set aside the order of granting divorce passed by the trial Court. 4 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 4. During pendency of this appeal, petitioner filed application in I.A. No.2 of 2026 seeking permission to amend the main petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act, 1955 in F.C.O.P.No.495 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act by striking out the relief sought in F.C.OP.No.495 of 2025 and grant divorce by mutual consent and both parties filed I.A.No.3 of 2026 seeking permission to that effect. 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 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 1 AIR 1986 AP 167 5 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 appellate contexts and with the aforementioned 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 apposite 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 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 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, 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), 2 CMA 651 of 2007 3 (2023) 14 SCC 231 6 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 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 husband filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed. 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 2007, they have been living separately and they have one child. Petitioner has no occupation and respondent is tailor. 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 seeking amendment of the petition and having considered the request made by the parties, this Court allowed the same. Further, they also filed I.A.No.3 of 2026 along with their affidavits and joint compromise memo agreeing to withdraw the pending cases, if any, 7 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 against both the parties and further, petitioner husband agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to his wife and daughter. Finally, both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. 9. The terms and conditions are in accordance with law and not opposite to public policy. So, this Court came to the conclusion, to put an end to the litigation, both wife and husband have taken decision to dissolve their marriage instead of continuing the present litigation. It is already stated above that the legislature intended to provide a mechanism for the easy dissolution of Hindu marriages by mutual consent, by marking a shift from viewing marriage as an indissoluble sacrament to a contractual agreement. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and long duration of desertion, this Court allowed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026. Out of the agreed amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, the petitioner husband is agreed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- within 30 days from the date of this Judgment in the bank account of their daughter namely Nakka Deva Varshini, aged about 18 years, at the first instance and thereafter, to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in the same account within 45 days from the first deposit and remaining Rs.5,00,000/- in the bank account of his wife i.e. appellant within 45 days from the second deposit. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife filed memo dated 12.08.2026 along with photocopies of bank passbooks containing account details of both the appellant and her daughter namely Nakka Deva Varshini and the respondent husband shall deposit Rs.10,00,000/- in the bank account of his daughter vide account No.45465101030, State Bank of India, Daba Gardens Branch, Visakhapatnam and Rs.5,00,000/- in the bank account of the 8 DEV,J & SUN, J FCA. No.26 of 2026 appellant i.e., his wife vide bearing account No.38237395714, State Bank of India, Daba Gardens Branch, Visakhapatnam. On such deposits, the appellant wife is agreed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as fixed deposit in the name of their daughter in any nationalized bank till she attains majority or marriage whichever is later. Further, she is permitted to withdraw interest out of the fixed deposit amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet educational expenses of the girl child and she is permitted to withdraw remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The affidavits of both parties and joint compromise memo consisting of 8 terms and conditions shall form part of this record. 11. In the result, this Family Court Appeal is allowed, and the decree and order dated 24.11.2025 passed in F.C.O.P.No.495 of 2017 by the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam is be and hereby set aside and consequently, dissolved the marriage dated 08.03.2007 between the petitioner and respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ______________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM 14.08.2026 Vns Whether the order is : ✓ Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No ✓ Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No