Yogendra Sharma Vs Nidhi Chauhan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

Yogendra Sharma Vs Nidhi Chauhan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the first appeal against the Family Court's rejection of the joint second motion for waiver is maintainable, given that sub-section (2) of Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes the period within which the second motion must be made. +1 more

Court's answer

The appeal is not maintainable: sub-section (2) of Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires parties to make the second motion not earlier than 6 months and not later than 18 months after filing of the joint petition; there is clarity in the provision and the Court accepts the Stamp Reporter's remark.

Key takeaways

In event the parties once again file the second motion within the prescribed period, the provision will stand attracted for being acted upon, to grant mutual divorce, irrespective of mediation continuing or remaining pending at that time.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First Appeal Defective No. 919 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Arindam Sinha and Avnish Saxena, JJ., September 12, 2025) dismissed as not maintainable. Appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's order dated 4th July, 2025 rejecting the joint second motion for waiver of the cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and sought condonation of a 19-day delay in presentation. The Court accepted the Stamp Reporter's remark and held that, since sub-section (2) of Section 13-B clearly requires the second motion to be made not earlier than 6 months and not later than 18 months after filing of the joint petition, the appeal was not maintainable; the condonation application was dismissed as a consequence. The Court observed that if the parties once again file the second motion within the prescribed period, the provision will stand attracted for grant of mutual divorce irrespective of mediation continuing or remaining pending. Ruling of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, referred to.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 919 of 2025

Yogendra Sharma

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Nidhi Chauhan

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hariom Kamal Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 39

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Mr. Hariom Kamal Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant-appellant-husband and submits, joint second motion for waiver was rejected on order dated 4th July, 2025 of the Family Court. His client is aggrieved. There has been ruling of the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 enabling parties to make second motion for waiver. The appeal was presented on reported delay of 19 days. Application has been made for condonation.

Mr. Ankit Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and submits, his client joined with applicant to petition for divorce by mutual consent. There was separation since 6th November, 2018. She supports applicant for waiver of cooling off period and expeditious dissolution of the marriage. On query Mr. Singh submits, rejection was purportedly based on ongoing mediation. On further query submission from the Bar is, their respective clients are sticking to their agreement of being separated.

Stamp Reporter has remarked that the appeal may not be maintainable. Sub-section (2) in section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires parties to make second motion not earlier than 6 months and not later than 18 months, after filing of the joint petition. As such, there is clarity in the provision. We accept remark made by the Stamp Reporter and hold that the appeal is not maintainable. However, we do observe that in event parties once again file second motion within the prescribed period, the

FAPLD No. 919 of 2025

2

provision will then stand attracted for being acted upon, to grant mutual divorce, irrespective of mediation continuing or remains pending at that time.

The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. As a consequence the application is also dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

September 12, 2025

Shiraz

Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad