Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saloni vs Sumit Dubey on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23596
1 MP-4509-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4509 of 2025
SMT. SALONI
Versus
SUMIT DUBEY
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Joginder Singh Rohilla, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of counsel for the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure-P/4)
passed in HMA Case No.958/2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Indore (MP), whereby a joint application filed by the parties herein to waive
of the mandatory cooling off period of six months' time, as provided under
Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act) has been rejected.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent's marriage was
solemnized on 18.04.2024, as per Hindu customs and rites at Indore and they
are living separately from 05.05.2024.whereas an application under Section
13-B of the Act for divorce by "mutual consent" has been filed on
08.05.2025. Thereafter, a joint application to waive off the cooling period of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23596
2 MP-4509-2025
six months period was also filed, wherein it was mentioned that since both
the parties have already settled their disputes and the respondent has given
Rs.5,51,000/- as permanent alimony to the petitioner by way of bank draft in
the name of petitioner. The petitioner has also contented that there is no
dispute left between the parties regarding ornaments and permanent alimony
and will not claim any maintenance or property for herself. The aforesaid
application came to be dismissed by the Family Court vide its order dated
25.07.2025 on the ground that parties have not stayed separately for
mandatory 18 months period under Section 13-B of the Act, relying upon
the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh V.
Harveen Kaur reported in 2017 (8) SCC 746.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a subsequent decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar V. Suman Beniwal
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270, wherein the Apex Court has also
interpreted the law laid down in Amardeep Singh (supra); and in paras 22, 27
and 28 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held, as under :-
"22. The Family Court, as well as the High Court, have
misconstrued the judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh v.
Harveen Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis that this Court
has held that the conditions specified in paragraph 19 of the said
judgment, quoted hereinabove, are mandatory and that the
statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13B (2) can
only be waived if all the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled,
including, in particular, the condition of separation of at least one
and half year before making the motion for decree of divorce.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
27. For exercise of the discretion to waive the statutory waiting
period of six months for moving the motion for divorce under
Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court would
consider the following amongst other factors: -
(i) the length of time for which the parties had been married;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23596
3 MP-4509-2025
(ii) how long the parties had stayed together as husband and wife;
(iii) the length of time the parties had been staying apart;
(iv) the length of time for which the litigation had been pending;
(v) whether there were any other proceedings between the parties;
(vi) whether there was any possibility of reconciliation;
(vii) whether there were any children born out of the wedlock;
(viii)whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without
any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which
took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children,
etc.
28. In this Case, as observed above, the parties are both well-
educated and highly placed government officers. They have been
married for about 15 months. The marriage was a non-starter.
Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after
which they have separated on account of irreconcilable
differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of
their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties
that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling
to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of
separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No
useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except
to prolong their agony." (Emphasis supplied)
4. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the parties that in the
pressing circumstances, in which the parties have found themselves, the
application for waiving the cooling off period of six months has been filed
and as has already been held by the Apx Court that even the conditions as
enumerated in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) are not mandatory and
the Court can also exercise its discretion taking into account the other
circumstances as well. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.5,51,000/- as
permanent alimony has also been given by the respondent to the petitioner by
way of a bank draft in her name.
5. On due consideration of the submissions, after perusal of the
documents filed on record, including the decision rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) and the order passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Vaibhav Pancholi V. Smt. Priya (M.P. No.4135/2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23596
4 MP-4509-2025
decided on 19.09.2022), this Court finds force with the contentions raised by
the counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the parties are already
living separately since last more than one year and three months (15 months),
the petitioner/wife has also received a bank draft of Rs.5,51,000/- towards
permanent alimony, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
application to waive the cooling off period of six months ought to have been
allowed.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P/4)
passed in HMA Case No.958/2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Indore (MP) is hereby set aside and the joint application dated 08.05.2025
filed by the parties to waive the cooling off period of six months is hereby
allowed and learned Judge of the Family Court is requested to proceed
further, as expeditiously as possible.
7. The parties are directed to remain present before the Family Court,
Indore on 10.09.2025.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
gp
