Shashank Sharma vs Nupur Bhardwaj

By means of the present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant has challenged the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in H.M.A. No.680 of 2026.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and the respondent are husband and wife having been married in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 26.11.2015 at Lucknow and they do not have any children out of the said wedlock.

¶12

It has been further submitted that differences arose between the parties to such an extent that it became impossible for them to continue their marital relationship and they have not been cohabiting as husband and wife since July 2019. Several attempts at reconciliation and mediation were undertaken by family members as well as other persons, but the same were not successful. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant and the respondent jointly filed an application for divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 23.02.2026.

¶13

It has been submitted that prior to filing the application under Section

¶14

FAPL No. 73 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, an agreement had been arrived at between the parties, wherein the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- by way of a demand draft before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. The said amount was to be payable at the time of passing of the decree along with the application for divorce. An application under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also filed seeking waiver of the six-month cooling-off period prior to initiation of the second motion.

¶17

It is further submitted that the application for waiver of the cooling-off period has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.03.2026. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and therefore, deserves to be set aside.

¶18

It has been submitted that all the ingredients for allowing the application for waiver of the cooling-off period are present in the instant case in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7650 of 2021, Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal . The Family Court, having ignored the provisions of the said judgment and having incorrectly recorded facts regarding the pendency of mediation proceedings, has erred, which constitutes a valid ground for setting aside the said order and allowing the appellant's application.

¶19

Considering the arguments advanced by the parties, it is noticed that the issue pertaining to waiver of the cooling-off period was considered in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) and findings were recorded in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment, which are quoted herein below:

¶20

"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: -

¶21

(1) the length of time for which the parties had been married:

¶22

(11) how long the parties had stayed together as husband and wife;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) whether there was any possibility of reconciliation;

¶27

FAPL No. 73 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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."

¶32

It is noticed that the parties were married for a period of merely four years and had stayed together as husband and wife during that period, though their relationship was strained. It is further observed that they have been living separately for the last seven years. Apart from the application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, no other application is pending with regard to any matrimonial dispute. It is also noted that they do not have any offspring out of the said wedlock.

¶33

We further find that the parties have entered into an agreement to dissolve their marriage in pursuance of which a demand draft of Rs. 29,00,000/- has already been deposited before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.

¶34

We further find that in the application for waiver of the cooling-off period, it was stated that the mediation proceedings had failed and therefore, there should be no hindrance in allowing the application for waiver of the coolingoff period. By means of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, the Family Court, while rejecting the application, held that the mediation proceedings were still pending, which formed the basis for rejection of the application seeking waiver of the cooling-off period.

¶35

We find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in the impugned order itself while considering the submissions on behalf of the parties had taken note of the fact that the mediation proceedings had concluded and did not result in any agreement between the parties and the mediation report was also on record on the date when the impugned order

FAPL No. 73 of 2026

4

was passed.

The Family Court, by not taking note of the aforesaid facts and particularly the report of the mediator indicating that no settlement had been arrived at between the parties, despite all other conditions indicating that sufficient grounds were made out for allowing the application for waiver of the cooling-off period, has acted with manifest arbitrariness in rejecting the said application.

¶40

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, we find that no mediation proceedings were pending between the parties on the date when the impugned order was passed and in fact, the said mediation proceedings had failed. Therefore, we find that sufficient grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order dated 16.03.2026.

¶41

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is hereby set aside. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is directed to proceed with the application preferred by the parties under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after waiving the cooling-off period required for the second motion and to proceed in accordance with law.

¶42

The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow along with a certified copy of this order on 12.05.2026.

¶43

April 23, 2026 Mahesh

¶44

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shashank Sharma v. Nupur Bhardwaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Sharma v. Nupur Bhardwaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Brija Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and Others

Dhiraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Deshraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Hareeram Singh vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Power/ Energy Lko. and 3 Others

Bhagwan Shankar @ Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Canara Bank Arm Branch C.O. Gomti Nagar Lucknow Thru. Authorized Officer Sri Rishikesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 11 Others