Section 13B(2) HMA Cooling-Off Period Waived: Raj HC

Six-Month Cooling-Off Under Section 13B(2) HMA Waived on Spouses' Settlement: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that refused to waive the six-month waiting period in a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent and kept the case for 28.02.2022. Following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, it held Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act directory, waived the period and directed the Family Court to pass the divorce decree (paras 11-14).

Key holdings

The six-month cooling-off period of Section 13B(2) guards against hasty decisions; it is directory and may be waived (Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur) (paras 8, 12).

Waiver suits spouses long living apart who have settled all claims and see no chance of reunion (paras 11-12).

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order refusing waiver and fixing a date months ahead (paras 5, 13).

All Family Courts within the High Court's jurisdiction were directed to decide Section 13B cases expeditiously (para 15).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The spouses, married under Hindu rites, had reached a 'point of no return' and lived separately for over two years (paras 2, 11). On 24.08.2021 they jointly applied under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent, agreeing that the husband would pay Rs. 15 lakh as one-time maintenance at the decree and that nothing more would be claimed (paras 2-4). With one of Jodhpur's three Family Courts vacant and pendency heavy, Family Court No. 1 posted the case to 28.02.2022 and, on 23.09.2021, rejected their request to waive the six-month period (paras 1, 4-5). The husband appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; the wife, appearing in person, joined the request (paras 5-6).

Court's Findings

Section 13B(1) allows a joint petition after a year or more of separation, and Section 13B(2) a second motion not earlier than six months after its presentation (para 7). The Court relied on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, where the Supreme Court held the six-month period directory: it guards against a hurried decision, not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage, and may be waived where the six-month and one-year periods are over before the first motion, mediation has failed, the parties have genuinely settled alimony, custody and other issues, and waiting would only prolong their agony (para 8). It also cited Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia, where the Supreme Court granted a mutual-consent divorce under Article 142 without awaiting the rest of the cooling-off period (para 9), and a Single Bench writ ruling of 09.11.2021 waiving the period under Article 226 (para 10). Here the spouses admittedly had lived apart for over two years, filed jointly and agreed the terms, while the Family Court had no Presiding Officer and had fixed a distant date (para 11). As the marriage could not be saved and the differences were settled, waiting would only prolong their agony; waiver served justice (para 12).

Legal Principle

The six-month waiting period in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, not mandatory. Where spouses have long lived apart, mediation holds no prospect of success, they have genuinely settled alimony and other issues and waiting would only prolong their agony, the period should be waived in the interest of justice (paras 8, 12).

Precedents Relied Upon

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur 2017 (8) SCC 746
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5, 8, 12
The six-month period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, not mandatory; the court may waive it where the statutory periods are already over, mediation has failed, the parties have genuinely settled their differences and waiting would only prolong their agony.
Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia 2012 (8) SCC 580
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
Where the parties could not live together and the marriage subsisted only because of the statutory cooling-off period, the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 without awaiting the rest of the period.
SBCWP No. 15518/2021 Rajasthan High Court, decided on 09.11.2021
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10
A Single Bench of the High Court, in a writ petition, waived the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) for spouses who had mutually decided to end their marriage with no chance of reconciliation, exercising powers under Article 226.

Statutory Provisions