Case Law Analysis

Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act | Statutory Cooling-Off Period Waived for Couples Separated Over One Year with Full Settlement : Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court waives the mandatory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act where spouses have lived separately for over a year, resolved all disputes, and jointly filed for divorce with full financial settlement. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s Amardeep Singh precedent, offering expedited divorce for mutually consenting couples with no pending disputes.

Cassie News NetworkCassie News Network
Apr 11, 2026, 3:57 AM(Updated: Nov 3, 2026)
•5 min read
Be the first to share in your circle
Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act | Statutory Cooling-Off Period Waived for Couples Separated Over One Year with Full Settlement : Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that where spouses have lived separately for over a year and reached a complete settlement - including payment of permanent alimony - the mandatory six-month cooling period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act may be waived. This decision reinforces judicial flexibility in mutual consent divorces when genuine reconciliation efforts have failed and both parties seek finality.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Ashish Kumar Shukla, filed a suit for divorce before the Family Court, Balod, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Smt. Preeti Sharma, on grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The Family Court rejected the suit by order dated 15.01.2024, holding that the appellant had not established sufficient grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

Key Facts

  • The parties married on an undisclosed date and lived together until their separation began in early 2023
  • As of the date of the High Court hearing, the parties had been living separately for more than one year
  • On 06.04.2026, the appellant paid the respondent Rs. 15,00,000 as permanent alimony via Cheque No. 099751 of State Bank of India
  • Both parties jointly filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, supported by sworn affidavits, seeking mutual divorce
  • The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court recorded their statements on 06.04.2026 confirming voluntary consent to divorce

Procedural History

  • 15.01.2024: Family Court, Balod, dismissed the appellant’s divorce suit
  • 06.04.2026: Parties filed joint application under Section 13B HMA before the High Court, accompanied by affidavits and proof of alimony payment
  • 06.04.2026: Registrar (Judicial) recorded statements of both parties confirming mutual consent
  • 07.04.2026: Division Bench heard the appeal and application together

Relief Sought

The appellant sought: (1) setting aside the Family Court’s order dated 15.01.2024; (2) dissolution of marriage under Section 13B HMA; (3) waiver of the six-month statutory waiting period under Section 13B(2); and (4) issuance of a divorce decree.

Can the mandatory six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 be waived when the parties have lived separately for over one year, reached a complete settlement including payment of permanent alimony, and jointly seek divorce with sworn affidavits?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Learned counsel submitted that the parties had been living separately for more than one year, satisfying the threshold under Section 13B(1). They had settled all financial and personal disputes, with the appellant having paid Rs. 15,00,000 as permanent alimony. The parties had filed a joint application under Section 13B with affidavits, and their consent was recorded by the Registrar. Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746, counsel argued that the statutory period is not inflexible and may be waived in the interest of justice when no possibility of reconciliation exists.

For the Respondent

The respondent, through her advocate, did not oppose the application. She confirmed her voluntary consent to divorce, acknowledged receipt of Rs. 15,00,000 as permanent alimony, and supported the waiver of the waiting period. Her position aligned entirely with the appellant’s.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the decision in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, wherein the Supreme Court held that the six-month cooling period under Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, and may be waived in appropriate cases. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had emphasized that the period is intended to allow reconciliation, not to prolong suffering where no hope of reunion remains.

"The object of the waiting period is to give the parties an opportunity to reconsider their decision and to reconcile. If the parties have already settled all disputes and are living separately for more than one year, the purpose of the waiting period is already served."

The Court observed that the parties had not only lived apart for over one year but had also resolved all financial obligations through payment of permanent alimony. Their joint application, supported by affidavits and recorded statements before the Registrar, demonstrated unequivocal and voluntary consent. The Court held that the statutory period under Section 13B(2) served no purpose in this case and its continuation would only cause unnecessary delay.

The Court further noted that the Family Court’s rejection of the divorce suit was based on the absence of fault-based grounds under Section 13, but did not consider the subsequent filing of a mutual consent petition under Section 13B, which is an independent statutory remedy.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The order dated 15.01.2024 of the Family Court was set aside. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 on mutual consent. The six-month statutory waiting period under Section 13B(2) was waived. A decree of divorce was directed to be drawn by the Registry of the High Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Waiver Is Not Exceptional But Reasonable

  • Practitioners may now confidently file applications for waiver of the six-month period under Section 13B(2) where separation exceeds one year and alimony is settled
  • Affidavits and Registrar’s recorded statements are critical evidence to establish voluntary consent
  • Payment of permanent alimony, even if not court-ordered, strengthens the case for waiver
  • Parties need not wait for the full six months if they meet the criteria under Amardeep Singh
  • High Courts and District Courts should treat joint applications under Section 13B with urgency when settlement is complete
  • Family Courts must not mechanically reject mutual consent petitions merely because the statutory period has not elapsed

Documentation Is Key

  • Always obtain sworn affidavits from both parties confirming consent, separation duration, and settlement terms
  • Secure bank records or cheque copies evidencing alimony payment
  • Request recording of statements by the Registrar before filing the application

Case Details

Ashish Kumar Shukla v. Smt. Preeti Sharma

PDF
Court
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Date
07 April 2026
Case Number
FA(MAT) No. 65 of 2024
Bench
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sachin Singh Rajput
Counsel
Pet: Pritam Tiwari
Res: Trevenee Shankar Sahu

Frequently Asked Questions

The Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur held that the six-month period under Section 13B(2) is directory, not mandatory, and may be waived if the parties have lived separately for over one year, settled all disputes, and demonstrate genuine mutual consent with supporting affidavits.
Payment of alimony alone is not sufficient, but when combined with one year of separation and sworn affidavits of mutual consent, it provides strong evidence that reconciliation is impossible, thereby justifying waiver under Amardeep Singh.
No. Section 13B requires a joint petition supported by affidavits from both parties. The Court cannot grant a mutual consent divorce without this procedural requirement, even if settlement exists.
0

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are based on the judgment analysis and should not be taken as professional counsel. Please consult with a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.