The Allahabad High Court has clarified that where a marriage is demonstrably irretrievably broken, mediation has conclusively failed, and both parties have jointly sought divorce with financial settlement in place, the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act may be waived. This ruling reinforces judicial discretion in expediting mutual consent divorces where prolonging the process serves no purpose but adds to emotional and procedural hardship.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant and the respondent were married on 26.11.2015 in Lucknow in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage produced no children. Differences arose shortly after the wedding, and the parties ceased cohabiting as husband and wife in July 2019. Despite multiple attempts at reconciliation by family members and mediators, no resolution was achieved. By February 2026, both parties jointly concluded that the marriage could not be salvaged and filed a joint petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent.
Key Facts
Marriage date: 26.11.2015
Last cohabitation: July 2019
Duration of separation: Approximately seven years
Duration of marriage: Approximately ten years
No children born out of wedlock
Joint application for divorce under Section 13B(1) filed on 23.02.2026
Appellant deposited Rs. 29,00,000/- via demand draft before the Family Court as part of the settlement agreement
Application under Section 13B(2) seeking waiver of the six-month cooling-off period filed on 23.02.2026
Mediation proceedings were initiated and concluded prior to the hearing on the waiver application
Mediation report, indicating no settlement, was on record before the Family Court on the date of the impugned order
Procedural History
26.11.2015: Marriage solemnized
July 2019: Parties ceased cohabitation
23.02.2026: Joint petition under Section 13B(1) filed before Family Court, Lucknow (H.M.A. No. 680 of 2026)
23.02.2026: Application under Section 13B(2) seeking waiver of cooling-off period filed
16.03.2026: Family Court rejected waiver application, erroneously holding that mediation proceedings were still pending
16.03.2026: Impugned order passed
05.04.2026: First Appeal No. 73 of 2026 filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
23.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) setting aside of the Family Court’s order dated 16.03.2026; (2) waiver of the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act; and (3) direction to the Family Court to proceed with the divorce petition without delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Family Court erred in refusing to waive the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the parties had been separated for seven years, mediation had conclusively failed, no children were involved, and a voluntary settlement including financial compensation had been deposited with the court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal (Civil Appeal No. 7650 of 2021), arguing that the Supreme Court had laid down a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered for waiving the cooling-off period, including the length of separation, absence of reconciliation prospects, absence of children, and existence of a genuine settlement. The appellant emphasized that the Family Court had misread the mediation report, which clearly stated that no settlement was reached, and that the proceedings had concluded. The deposit of Rs. 29,00,000/- was cited as evidence of the parties’ bona fide intent to dissolve the marriage amicably.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the respondent did not contest the factual assertions regarding separation or mediation failure. The respondent’s position was that the Family Court’s discretion should be respected, and that statutory timelines must be strictly followed unless exceptional circumstances were clearly established. However, no substantive counter-argument was advanced to refute the applicability of Amit Kumar or the factual record.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench undertook a detailed review of the Family Court’s reasoning and the record. It noted that the Family Court had rejected the waiver application on the ground that mediation proceedings were still pending. However, the court observed that the mediation report itself, which was on record at the time of the order, explicitly stated that no settlement had been reached and that the mediation had concluded.
"The Family Court, by not taking note of the aforesaid facts and particularly the report of the mediator indicating that no settlement had been arrived at between the parties, despite all other conditions indicating that sufficient grounds were made out for allowing the application for waiver of the cooling-off period, has acted with manifest arbitrariness in rejecting the said application."
The Bench drew a direct parallel with Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, where the Supreme Court held that when parties have lived apart for nearly the entire duration of a short marriage, with no possibility of reconciliation and a voluntary settlement in place, the six-month waiting period serves no useful purpose and only prolongs suffering. The present case, the court found, presented even stronger grounds: a ten-year marriage with seven years of separation, no children, and a substantial financial settlement already deposited.
The court emphasized that judicial discretion under Section 13B(2) is not mechanical but must be exercised with sensitivity to the reality of the parties’ situation. The Family Court’s reliance on a non-existent pending mediation was a clear error of fact, rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Family Court, Lucknow, was set aside. The Family Court is directed to waive the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and proceed with the divorce petition filed under Section 13B(1). The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 12.05.2026 with a certified copy of this order. The deposit of Rs. 29,00,000/- shall be applied toward the terms of the settlement as agreed upon by the parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mediation Failure Must Be Documented and Considered
Practitioners must ensure that mediation reports are formally filed and brought to the court’s attention when seeking waiver of the cooling-off period
A written report stating "no settlement" is conclusive evidence that mediation has failed
Courts cannot rely on mere assertions of pending mediation without documentary proof
Settlement Deposit Strengthens Waiver Application
Voluntary deposit of substantial financial compensation before the court demonstrates bona fide intent and reduces risk of future disputes
Such deposits are now recognized as strong indicators of mutual consent and finality of settlement
Counsel should routinely advise clients to deposit settlement amounts at the time of filing Section 13B(1) petitions
Amit Kumar Is Now Binding Precedent for Waiver in Long-Separation Cases
The Amit Kumar factors are not optional guidelines but binding criteria for judicial discretion
Separation exceeding five years, absence of children, and no pending litigation are now sufficient grounds for waiver
Courts must not apply cooling-off periods mechanically in cases where reconciliation is demonstrably impossible
