Dismissed¶20

Ankit Tiwari v. Pranjali Trivedi

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026A227/395/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ankit Tiwari v. Pranjali Trivedi, Matters Under Article 227 No. 395 of 2026, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow), decided February 4, 2026 (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.). Direction sought to Family Court, Lucknow to waive six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act in mutual consent divorce (Divorce Petition No. 3910 of 2025); waiver refused - vague averments, no exceptional circumstances made out, earlier Family Court rejection dated 23.12.2025 unchallenged and attained finality; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The waiver application was founded on vague averments: the petitioner did not disclose his mother's ailment, the nature of the surgeries undergone by her, or the urgency involved in the proposed treatment at Mumbai. ¶18

Ankit Tiwari vs Pranjali Trivedi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 395 of 2026

Ankit Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Pranjali Trivedi

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jagjeet Singh, Anju Srivastava, Devendra Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Devendra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to decide the Divorce Petition No.3910 of 2025: Ankit Tiwari and Pranjali Trivedi by waiving the cooling off period of six months under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

¶13

The petitioner and the opposite party have filed a suit for divorce by mutual consent on 01.11.2025. On 23.12.2025, the petitioner filed an application for waiving of the six months cooling off period stating that the parties are residing separately since 20.02.2024 i.e. for a period exceeding twenty two months, there are no chances of reconciliation and the petitioner needs to shift to Mumbai for a long period for his mother's further treatment who has already undergone two surgeries. The petitioner claims that he is the sole support for his mother. The Family Court has rejected the application by means of an order dated 23.12.2025, validity whereof has not been challenged by the petitioner.

¶14

The Family Court has observed in the order dated 23.12.2025 that although the six months period mentioned under Section

¶15

A227 No. 395 of 2026

¶16

¶17

13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act can be relaxed, keeping in view the facts of the case, no ground is made out for waiving of the cooling off period.

¶18

Having examined the application filed by the petitioner for waiving of the cooling off period of six months, this court finds that the application was filed on vague averments. The petitioner has not disclosed ailment of his mother, the nature of surgeries undergone by her and the urgency involved in proposed treatment at Mumbai.

¶19

It is correct that in an exceptional case the court can waive of cooling off period of six months, but the party seeking waiving of period has to make out an exceptional circumstances and the cooling off period cannot be waived in a routine manner. Further the validity of the order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of cooling off period has not been challenged by the petitioner and it has attained finality. In these circumstances, this court does not find any good ground to make interfere in this petition.

¶20

. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed

¶21

February 4, 2026

¶22

Ram.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Tiwari v. Pranjali Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Tiwari v. Pranjali Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mo. Rijvan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dharmendra Gautam vs State Public Service Tribunal Indira Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman/Registrar and 3 Others

Ravinder Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 5 Others

Shailendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Suryaprabha vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Mo. Shakeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others