1. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is filing Vakalatnama today. He has no objection to allow the present petition.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.10.2024 passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur in RCSHM No.1269/2024, whereby the petitioner and the respondent, who are husband and wife had filed the joint application for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent before the Family Court. Both the parties filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for waiving of 6 months cooling period for grant of decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties are residing separately from 31.7.2023 and the mediation has already been failed between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has already pleaded that he has no objection and he had also filed joint petition for divorce by mutual consent with the petitioner.

5. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o f Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, Pooja Bhuveshwar Prasad Sharma vs. Ashish Vinaybhai Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 219 and Shilpa Sailesh Vs, Varun Sreenivaxan 2023 SCC online SC 544, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions of cooling of period envisaged under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not mandatory but they are discretionary in nature.

6. Learned Counsel has also relied upon a subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270, wherein the Supreme Court has also interpreted the law laid down in the case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra); and in para 22, 27 and 3 MP No.4135/2022 28 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has held, as under: -

“ 22. The Family Court, as well as the High Court, have misconstrued the judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra) and proceeded on the basis that this Court has held that the conditions specified in paragraph 19 of the said judgment, quoted hereinabove, are mandatory and that the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13B (2) can only be waived if all the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, including, in particular, the condition of separation of at least one and half year before making the motion for decree of divorce..........

27 . For exercise of the discretion to waive the statutory waiting period of six months for moving the motion for divorce under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court would consider the following amongst other factors: - wife;

(i) the length of time for which the parties had been married;

(ii) how long the parties had stayed together as husband and

(iii) the length of time the parties had been staying apart;

(iv) the length of time for which the litigation had been pending;

(v) whether there were any other proceedings between the parties;

(vi) whether there was any possibility of reconciliation;

(vii) whether there were any children born out of the wedlock;

(viii) whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children, etc.

28. In this Case, as observed above, the parties are both well-educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months The marriage was a non-starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except to prolong their agony.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 8.10.2024 is set aside. The parties agree to appear before the Family Court on 7.1.2025 and on the said date the Family Court shall decide the petition for divorce in accordance with law expeditiously keeping in view the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra)

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.