The Gujarat High Court has ruled on a petition involving a mutual-consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, focusing on the statutory “cooling-off” period that follows the filing of the first motion for divorce. In the case, a couple who had been married in December 2023 and separated barely a month later jointly filed a mutual-consent divorce petition in April 2025, asserting that they had been living separately since January 2024 and that there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Family Court at Ahmedabad had rejected their petition on the ground that it was premature because the mandatory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) had not been completed and because they had not filed a separate application seeking waiver of that period. The Family Court described the six-month period as a meaningful opportunity for reconciliation rather than an empty formality. The couple then appealed to the High Court seeking to quash the Family Court’s order and to have their mutual-consent divorce petition restored for fresh consideration.
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Justices Sangeeta Vishen and Nisha Thakore, quashed the Family Court’s order rejecting the mutual-consent petition and restored the petition for adjudication on merits. The High Court observed that the statutory six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory in nature rather than mandatory, and that it should not be applied rigidly in every case in a manner that prolongs the agony of parties whose marriage has irretrievably broken down and where reconciliation is clearly impossible. The Court took note of the fact that the couple had been living separately for well over a year by the time the petition was filed and that they were living apart in different countries, with divergent plans for their personal and professional futures. Under these circumstances, the Bench reasoned that insisting on the formal completion of the cooling-off period or mechanically treating it as an absolute bar to further proceedings served no constructive purpose and would only prolong the emotional distress of both parties. The High Court emphasised that the statutory provisions should be interpreted in a way that furthers the object of the law, which includes dissolving a marriage by mutual consent where the parties are ad idem and where there is no realistic prospect of reunion. On this basis, the High Court directed that the mutual-consent divorce petition be restored and that the Family Court at Ahmedabad consider and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months, taking into account all relevant legal requirements. The Court noted that while the parties had not originally filed a waiver application, they agreed to do so within a specified period before the Family Court, and the High Court’s order allowed them an opportunity to pursue that step in the interest of justice. The High Court’s judgment clarifies that in appropriate factual situations where the marriage has clearly disintegrated and reconciliation is not feasible, the cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13B(2) need not operate as a rigid impediment to progressing a mutual-consent divorce application.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.