In a significant decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, presided over by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, dismissed a petition seeking a waiver of the mandatory six-month cooling-off period for a mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment, delivered on August 30, 2024, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4933 of 2024, emphasized that the statutory period is intended to allow couples adequate time for reflection before finalizing their decision to separate.
Background of the Case
The petition concerned a couple who were married in January 2015 but have been living separately since October 2017. They jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in July 2024, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
The statements of both parties were recorded shortly after the filing, and the Family Court in Jabalpur scheduled the next hearing for January 2025 to record their second statements. In the interim, the petitioner moved an application requesting the waiver of the six-month cooling-off period, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [(2017) 8 SCC 746], which held that the cooling-off period is not mandatory but directory in nature.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around whether the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act could be waived. The petitioner argued that the period should be waived due to practical difficulties, as he resides in Bhopal while the case is being heard in Jabalpur. The petition contended that the frequent travel required to attend court hearings caused significant inconvenience.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, while dismissing the petition, emphasized that mere inconvenience in attending court hearings is not a sufficient ground for waiving the statutory cooling-off period. The Court outlined the specific conditions under which the cooling-off period may be waived, as established by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur. The conditions include:
1. All efforts at mediation and conciliation must have failed.
2. The parties must have genuinely settled their differences, including issues related to alimony, child custody, and other pending matters.
3. The waiting period will only prolong the parties’ agony.
4. Both parties have decided to move ahead with their lives.
The Court observed that the petitioners had not satisfactorily demonstrated that these conditions were met. The application did not plead that the parties had resolved all issues or that they were prepared to move on with their lives beyond the inconvenience of attending hearings.
Quoting from the order, Justice Ahluwalia stated, “The basic purpose of making a provision for a cooling period is to allow the parties to think over the decision of getting separated.”
He further noted, “Under these circumstances, inconvenience of the parties to appear before the Court cannot be a ground to waive off the cooling period.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient grounds for waiving the cooling-off period, thereby upholding the Family Court’s decision to deny the waiver application. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the statutory intent behind the cooling-off period to ensure that couples contemplating divorce have adequate time to reconsider their decision.
Counsel Details:
– For the Petitioner: Shri Vivek Agrawal
– For the Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tiwari
Case Citation: MISC PETITION No. 4933 of 2024, Neutral Citation No. 2024:MPHC-JBP:43693.
