Mutual Consent Divorce — Cooling-Off Period · 12 September 2017
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur: Supreme Court Allows Waiver of the Cooling-Off Period in Mutual Consent Divorce
Supreme Court of India · (2017) 8 SCC 746; AIR 2017 SC 4417
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The parties sought a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which requires a minimum interval of six months (and up to eighteen months) between the first and second motions before a court can grant the decree, intended to give the parties an opportunity to reconsider. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this waiting period is mandatory in every case, or whether courts have discretion to waive it.
The Court held that the six-month period under Section 13B(2) is directory and not mandatory. Where a court is satisfied that a case meets certain conditions — the statutory minimum separation period has genuinely elapsed, mediation or settlement efforts have failed, and the parties have resolved all connected disputes such as alimony, custody and property — continuing to insist on the waiting period would only prolong the parties' hardship without serving any purpose. The Court laid down guidelines for exercising this discretion, including that such applications may be considered on affidavit, without requiring the parties to appear in person, and clarified that the discretion is available to the court but is not a matter of right for the parties.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.