JUDGMENT

AMIT RAWAL, J. –

1. The present revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.2018 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application seeking waiver of statutory period of six months for passing a decree of divorce with mutual consent in a divorce petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (for short “1955 Act”), has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, learned counsel representing the petitioner-wife submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.12.2013. They have been living separately since 14.8.2015. On the aforementioned date, there was a family settlement amongst the parties in the presence of the members of the Panchayat and relatives, wherein they decided to dissolve the marriage by way of mutual consent by settling the terms and conditions as the wife had taken permanent alimony. There is no child out of the wedlock. Divorce petition under Section 13-B of 1955 Act was jointly submitted on 28.3.2018 and the Court had fixed the hearing of second motion after recording the statements of the parties vide order dated 31.3.2018 and posted the matter for six months, but misc. application seeking waiver had been dismissed. In support of his contention, relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh Versus Harveen Kaur, 2018 (1) L.A.R. 81 = 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 608 to submit that the principles as culled out in the aforementioned judgment are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. On the other hand, Ms.Tanvi Jain, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent-husband and, on instructions from his client, who was present in the Court, submitted that his client has no objection in case the period of six months is waived of. She also did not dispute the factum of being living separately.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. An occasion arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to ponder upon as to whether the provisions of Section 13-B (2) of 1955 Act were mandatory or directory and after discussion of the case law on the point with the assistance of amicus, the following principles have been culled out in Para 18, which read thus:-

“i)    the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

ii)     All efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32A, Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/ Section 9 of the Family Court Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

iii)    the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

iv)    the waiting period will only prolong their agony.”

6. The trial Court dismissed the application seeking waiver on two grounds, (i) that the parties have not given any indication as to whether they want to get remarried; and (ii) how it would be difficult for the husband to come back from Australia, who had gone abroad for the purpose of professional commitments, for, he can execute the power of attorney in favour of his relative or friend. I am afraid the aforementioned reasoning rendered by the Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the aforementioned principles have been complied with, for, the parties have been living separately since 14.8.2015, i.e., one year before filing of the divorce petition, which was filed on 28.3.2018. The terms and conditions as expressed in the divorce petition and as well as the present petition indicated that both the parties have settled their disputes because the marriage between the parties has broken. The disputes have been settled by way of lump-sum, for, the wife would not be entitled to take any maintenance from the second party. It has also been stated that there were no chances of reconciliation or rapprochement. All the aforementioned facts, in my view, are sufficing the principles culled out in the judgment cited supra.

7. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order is set-aside. The period of six months is waived. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

8. Revision petition stands allowed.

Petition allowed.

********