In mutual consent divorce proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a statutory period of six months is prescribed between the filing of the first and second motions. The purpose of this waiting period is to allow couples time for reconciliation and introspection. However, in exceptional cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that this period may be waived if reconciliation efforts have definitively failed and prolonging the waiting period would only cause unnecessary hardship.

1. Legal Provision: Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13B allows couples to seek divorce based on mutual consent, requiring two motions:
   • First Motion: Filed jointly by both parties declaring that they can no longer live together.
   • Second Motion: Filed after a six-month "cooling-off" period, following which the court finalizes the divorce if reconciliation hasn't been achieved.
   However, as seen in the following case laws, the courts have held that this cooling-off period is not mandatory when there is no chance of reconciliation.
2. Key Supreme Court Judgments on Waiving the Six-Month Period
   1. Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 Key Holding: In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Supreme Court recognized that the six-month waiting period is directory, not mandatory, meaning it can be waived if certain conditions are met. The court emphasized that waiving the period is appropriate if:
      • Both parties have genuinely consented to the divorce.
      • All attempts at reconciliation have failed.
      • There is no possibility of cohabitation.
      The court held that if these conditions are satisfied, then prolonging the marriage for procedural reasons would be unnecessary. Citation: Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746.
   2. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted that the waiting period is a remedial measure for attempting reconciliation but can be waived under specific circumstances by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution (which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice). The court concluded that the welfare of the parties should be the paramount consideration in deciding whether to waive the waiting period. Citation: Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393.
   3. Soniya v. State of Punjab, AIR 2019 SC 1006 The court here waived the six-month period after finding that there was no likelihood of reconciliation and that both parties desired to finalize the divorce without delay. The judgment underscored that the procedural requirement should not prolong the suffering of either party when reconciliation is no longer a possibility. Citation: Soniya v. State of Punjab, AIR 2019 SC 1006.
   4. Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415 In Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, the Supreme Court reiterated that the court has discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage without insisting on the cooling-off period if it would serve complete justice. This judgment paved the way for a broader understanding of judicial discretion in mutual consent divorce cases. Citation: Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415.
3. Conditions for Waiving the Waiting Period In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Supreme Court specified conditions for waiver of the six-month period:
   • The statutory period may be waived if reconciliation efforts have been exhausted.
   • Both spouses must file affidavits affirming that reconciliation is not possible.
   • Parties must demonstrate urgency or any other special circumstances.
4. Implications of These Judgments These judgments provide relief to couples by eliminating unnecessary delays in cases where marriage dissolution is the only viable outcome. The court's approach is aimed at reducing mental and emotional distress, allowing couples to move on with their lives without unnecessary procedural delays.

Written by: Prithwish Ganguli, Advocate - LLM (CU), M.A. Criminology & Forensic Sc (NALSAR), M.A. Sociology (SRU) Advocate Dip. in International Convention & Maritime Law, Dip. in Psychology, UNESCO Certified on AI and the Rule of Law ALISON certified on GDPR Guest Faculty, Heritage Law College