Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Hemlata Sharma vs Lalit Kumar Sharma on 27 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30875
1 MP-5962-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5962 of 2025
SMT. HEMLATA SHARMA
Versus
LALIT KUMAR SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Mohit Pandya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rishabh Upadhyaya - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Heard.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed in RCSHM
Case No.1644/2025 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore
(MP), whereby an application filed by the petitioner herein to waive 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 13.07.2016, as per Hindu customs and rites and they are living
separately since 25/04/2019, thereafter an application under Section 13-B of
the Act for divorce by "mutual consent" has been filed. Thereafter, an
application to waive off the cooling period of six months period was also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30875
2 MP-5962-2025
filed, wherein it was mentioned that since both the parties have already
settled their disputes mutually and the petitioner will not claim alimony,
streedhan so also any maintenance or property for herself. The aforesaid
application came to be dismissed by the Family Court vide its order dated
25.09.2025 on the ground that parties are not fulfilling the condition No.4
contained in para 19 of the judgment 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 Smt. Baljeet Kaur Vs. Harjeet
Singh reported in LAWS (MPH) 2018-5-289 and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30875
3 MP-5962-2025
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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30875
4 MP-5962-2025
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 Apex 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.
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
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, 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 25.09.2025 passed in
RCSHM Case No.1644/2025 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Indore (MP) is hereby set aside and the application filed by the
petitioner to waive off the cooling period of six months is hereby allowed
and learned Judge of the Family Court is requested to proceed further, as
expeditiously as possible.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30875
5 MP-5962-2025
7. The parties are directed to remain present before the Family Court,
Ujjain on 04.11.2025.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
PK
