Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinita Marmat vs Ravi Arora on 28 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2137
1 MP-262-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 262 of 2025
VINITA MARMAT
Versus
RAVI ARORA
Appearance:
Shri Syed Asif Ali Warsi - advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 6l.1.2025 passed by Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ujjain in HMA Case No.513/2024 whereby the application
filed by the petitioner and the respondent to waive off the cooling period of
six months and to decide the petition u/S.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act
and to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as the
respondents had amicably settled the matter and they have filed joint
application u/S.13-B for divorce on mutual consent. It is stated in the
application that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately for
last more than two years. It is further stated that party No.2 petitioner is
posted on the post of Bank Manager in SBI, Chandigarh and, therefore, it is
not possible for him to attend the dates. The Court has dismissed the said
application on the ground that the petitioner has not given the details for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2137
2 MP-262-2025
waiving off the cooling period. He has only stated that his date for second
marriage has been fixed on 28.1.2025 but he has not given the sufficient
details.
4. 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 of Amandeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8
SCC 746; 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 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
2 7 . 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;
(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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2137
3 MP-262-2025
(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).
5. Thus, it is submitted by the learned 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 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. It is also submitted that a sum of
Rs.5 lacs as permanent alimony has also been given by the petitioner to the
respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2137
4 MP-262-2025
6. Considering the impugned order and the judgments passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Amandeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC
746 and Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniwal (2021) SCC Online 1270 and the
facts of the present case that the petitioner and the respondent are living
separately for last two years and the matter has been amicably settled, the
petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner and the
respondent shall appear before the trial court on 4.2.2025. The trial court
shall consider the petition for divorce on mutual consent in accordance with
law and shall pass necessary orders.
7. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
