[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhijeet Singh Parihar vs Smt. Soni Tomar on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31588
1 MP-6739-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6739 of 2025
ABHIJEET SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
SMT. SONI TOMAR
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shubhendu Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025
[Annexure P/1] passed in RCS HM No.1258/2025 by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior whereby the joint application preferred by the parties
for waiving the cooling off period of six months as provided under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected holding that as per
the said section the period of six months is mandatory and that no reason has
been shown for the urgency.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court towards decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Amit
Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal (2023) 17 SCC 648 as also the order passed by
this Court in the case of Mohit Mahajan versus Pratyush Bhatore in MP
No.556 of 2023 on 27.01.2023 wherein this Court has also taken into
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31588
2 MP-6739-2025
consideration the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep
Singh vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 as also the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) and has allowed the
parties to obtain the decree of divorce by waving six months cooling off
period as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also supported the
petition and has submitted that the respondent has already settled all the
disputes with the petitioner. They have agreed to withdraw all their cases, if
any, against each other. Both of them wish to move forward in their life and
the petitioner also wishes to re-marry and the respondent does not wish to be
a hurdle in the same. They want divorce by mutual consent at the earliest.
4. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the parties are residing
separately since after one year of their marriage which took place on
26.02.2020. The petition for divorce by mutual consent has been filed on
09.10.2025. Both the parties are well aware of their rights and are well off
and they have already settled the matter out of Court and no dispute remains
between them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in
the case of Mohit Mahajan(Supra). The relevant part of the order is as under:
"3. Counsel has also relied upon a subsequent decision rendered
by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman
Beniwal reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1270, wherein the
Supreme Court has also interpreted the law laid down in the case
o f Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) ; and in para 22, 27
and 28 of the said decision, the Supreme 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31588
3 MP-6739-2025
specified in paragraph 19 of the said judgment, quoted
herein above, 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.
Xxxxxxxxxxx
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
(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 learned counsel for the parties
(husband and wife) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31588
4 MP-6739-2025
been held by the Supreme Court that even the conditions as
enumerated in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
(supra) are not mandatory and the Court can also exercise its
discretion taking into account the other circumstances as well.5
MP No.556/2023.
5. On due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the
documents filed on record, including the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal
(supra), this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the
parties are already living separately since last more than one year,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the application to
waive the cooling off period of six months ought to have been
allowed."
5. Thus, it is found that the reasoning assigned by the Family Court is
erroneous in as much as the Court has not considered the decisions rendered
by the Apex Court which have been taken into consideration by this Court in
the order passed in the case of Mohit Mahajan (supra).
6. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed
by the Family Court is hereby set aside and the joint application filed by the
parties for waving off the cooling period of six months is hereby allowed.
The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Gwalior on
16.12.2025 and the Family Court is requested to proceed further in
accordance with law.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
