SECTION 13 B HMA

Case Note:

Family - Divorce - Waiver of cooling off period - Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Parties were living separately - Disputes between parties gave rise to civil and criminal proceedings - Settlement was arrived at to resolve all disputes and seeks divorce by mutual consent - Parties have moved present Court on ground that only present Court could relax six months period as per decisions of present Court - Whether minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of Act for motion for passing decree of divorce on basis of mutual consent was mandatory or could be relaxed in any exceptional situations.

Facts:

The parties were living separately. Disputes between the parties gave rise to civil and criminal proceedings. Settlement was arrived at to resolve all the disputes and seeks divorce by mutual consent. Custody of the children was to be with the Appellant. They have sought waiver of the period of six months for the second motion on the ground that they have been living separately for the last more than eight years and there was no possibility of their re union. Any delay would affect the chances of their resettlement. The parties have moved present Court on the ground that only present Court could relax the six months period as per decisions of present Court.

Held, while disposing off the appeal:

(i) The object of the provision was to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling of the period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there were no chances of reunion and there were chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option. The period mentioned in Section 13B(2) was not mandatory but directory, it would be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there was no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there were chances of alternative rehabilitation. [16] and[21]

Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (12.09.2026 - SC) : MANU/SC/1134/2017