AP High Court Waives Six-Month Cooling-Off Period for Mutual Consent Divorce After Full Settlement
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a Family Court order that refused to advance a mutual consent divorce petition, holding the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory, not mandatory, where parties have genuinely resolved all disputes.
Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, sitting singly, allowed a civil revision petition filed by a husband and wife from Ongole, Prakasam District, and set aside a docket order of the Judge, Family Court, Prakasam District, Ongole dated 12 April 2026. The Family Court had dismissed I.A. No.203 of 2026, an application seeking advancement of the main mutual consent divorce petition, on the ground that the statutory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had not elapsed. The High Court held that where parties have settled all inter se disputes — including permanent alimony, child custody, property distribution, and pending criminal cases — insisting on the cooling-off period serves no purpose and prolongs their hardship.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioners, Chenikala Harshavardhini and Chenikala Manohar, were married on 4 December 2022 at Ongole and have a minor daughter born on 2 September 2023. Following matrimonial disputes, they had been living separately for over one and a half years and were not on cordial terms.
They filed F.C.O.P. No.12 of 2023 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. The petition was taken on file on 12 January 2026 and posted to 13 July 2026, the Family Court observing the statutory six-month cooling-off period.
Before that date arrived, the petitioners filed I.A. No.203 of 2026 seeking advancement of the hearing. They placed on record a comprehensive settlement: the second petitioner (husband) agreed to pay Rs.62 lakhs to the first petitioner (wife) and their minor daughter towards their share and permanent alimony, in addition to house plots already settled in the wife's favour. The first petitioner agreed to withdraw the criminal cases filed against the second petitioner. The parties also sought referral to mediation to record the settlement terms.
The Family Court dismissed the application. It found no sufficient grounds or urgency to waive the cooling-off period, held the six-month period to be mandatory for enabling reconsideration and reconciliation, and observed that referring the matter for mediation before the period's completion would defeat its object.
The Legal Issue
The core question before the High Court was whether the six-month cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is mandatory or directory, and whether a court has discretion to waive it in appropriate cases.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Ayesha Azma S, argued that the object of Section 13-B — enabling reconciliation, mediation, and reconsideration — had already been achieved. The parties had resolved all disputes and consciously decided to part ways. Insisting on the period in such circumstances, she submitted, would serve no purpose.
She relied on two Supreme Court decisions: Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417, and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, (2023) 17 SCC 648. Both judgments, she contended, establish that the cooling-off period is directory and can be waived where the court is satisfied that parties have genuinely resolved their disputes and reconciliation is not possible.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Nimmagadda examined the affidavit filed by the petitioners in I.A. No.203 of 2026 before the Family Court. He found that it disclosed clearly and categorically that all inter se disputes between the husband and wife had been amicably settled, covering permanent alimony, custody and welfare of the minor child, and distribution of properties. No subsisting issue remained for adjudication.
The Court applied the principles from Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, reiterating that the cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, and can be waived in appropriate cases where the court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely resolved their disputes and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
The Court acknowledged the purpose of Section 13-B(2): to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties to reconsider their decision and explore the possibility of reunion. However, it held that when parties have been living separately for a considerable period, have settled all supplementary issues, and have consciously decided to part ways, continuation of the statutory period would serve no useful purpose. The Court observed that “the law does not mandate the preservation of a matrimonial bond that has irretrievably broken down.”
On the facts, the Court was satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties was voluntary and genuine, and that the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court for waiver of the cooling-off period stood fulfilled. The Family Court's insistence on the period, in these circumstances, was found to be an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Order
The High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition No.1405 of 2026 and set aside the docket order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Prakasam District, Ongole in I.A. No.203 of 2026 in F.C.O.P. No.12 of 2026 dated 12 April 2026.
The Family Court was directed to take up the petition filed for advancement of the matter and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed. The judgment was pronounced on 4 May 2026, with copies directed to be ready by 6 May 2026.